Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
The state criminal statutes concerning drunk driving are unjust, and are so vague and broad that certainty of compliance with the law is impossible. The law threatens anyone who mixes drinking, no matter how temperate, with the operation of a vehicle. I should know. I worked briefly as a deputy district attorney in a rural California county, prosecuting DUI cases. And I sincerely regret having had anything to do with the enforcement of the drunk driving laws. Here follows a brief outline of California's drunk driving system (which resembles the systems of most other states, thanks to federal dictates):
First, the law is enforced by highly specialized and sophisticated police forces from multiple agencies & departments, state, county, and city. These police zealously enforce two separate DUI statutes, Vehicle Code 23152(a) and 23152(b). 23152(b) bans driving with a blood alcohol content of .08% or greater. Clearly this limit is too low. But as Lew Rockwell has written, the real injustice of the law is not the low threshold, but the fact that the mere act of driving with excessive blood alcohol is a crime at all. The purpose of the law is to forbid drivers from creating an unnacceptably high risk of a traffic accident. This flies in the face of all reason & centuries of legal tradition. As every first year law student knows, liability for negligence requires an unreasonable risk and damages. Yet California's 23152(b) criminalizes the mere creation of a risk – and query whether a .08 driver poses a real risk – without respect to any damages or consequences at all.
Every day when I was a prosecutor I saw drunk driving defendants in court who had not caused any accident, injury, or property damage, facing devastating criminal penalties merely for driving with an unlawful blood alcohol content (BAC).
In fact, many defendants I saw had already arrived at their destination without incident, and were arrested subsequently during unrelated police investigations, when the police noticed symptoms of alcohol consumption, and evidence showed that the defendant had driven there. The fact that there was no crash made no difference.
Again, it is not that .08% is too low – it is. But 23152(b) would still unjustly penalize drivers who caused no harm whatsoever even if the limit were raised to .10%, or to .60%. As Mr. Rockwell notes in his column, a further defect of the law is that people who wish to comply cannot know with any security what their BAC is until the police test it. This is the exact definition of tyranny. When citizens cannot know how to conform their acts to the law, the rule of law is at an end.
But it gets even worse. At least under 23152(b) there is a clear definition of lawful and criminal behavior. Under 23152(a), it is criminal to drive "under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug . ." In practice "under the influence" means whatever the authorities decide it means. Prosecutors often file charges when blood tests only show a BAC of 0.07%, 0.06%, or even 0.05%, when they have evidence that the defendant weaved or drifted, or that the defendant performed poorly on police administered "Field Sobriety Tests". Thus 23152(a) subjects anyone who drives after drinking even a totally insignificant amount of alcohol to the threat of prosecution, if prosecutors think they can persuade a jury that the person drove "under the influence" – whatever that means.
A favored prosecution trick is to charge defendants with less than .08% blood results with a 23152(a) violation, even when there is no evidence showing the defendant was under the influence, in hopes that the defendant will plead to a lesser charge rather than risk a jury trial. Prosecutors often make a big show about "offering" to allow a plea to the lesser included charge when no evidence exists that a below-the-limit defendant was under the influence, but of course if the defendant was below the limit and was not influenced, there was no crime! But many defendants take the deal. This isn't "law" at all. The standard of 23152(a) is so vague and dependant on the arbitrary whims of the authorities that prosecutions under this statute are nothing more than displays of unrestrained government power. Indeed, under this statutory scheme there is no way to mix driving with drinking – no matter how small the quantities – and be safe from the threat of criminal penalties. Indeed, so called "zero tolerance" laws banning driving with any blood alcohol at all would be a vast improvement on this situation. At least then people who wished to behave legally would know that compliance requires no drinking whatsoever if you wish to drive.
Another feature of the the drunk driving laws is that they create a vast and parasitic industry of specialized sobriety police, tow truck companies, judges, DUI defense lawyers, DUI prosecutors, and ignition interlock companies. Particularly ghoulish are the government's blood testing labs, which draw and test blood from arrested suspects, and the blood "experts" who testify for the prosecution in DUI trials. Interestingly, these same blood labs participate in the drug war, testing blood for "controlled substances." One comic aspect of the DUI industry are the court ordered DUI schools, which are expensive and silly wastes of time where students watch crash videos in a supportive AA environment.
The drunk driving laws also bring in huge amounts of money to the county governments and courts that enforce them. In my experience, fines for first time offenders could reach as high as 1,200 dollars, plus booking fees and victim's fund fees. Once a defendant has been convicted of a DUI the Department of Motor Vehicles automatically suspends his license. Since modern life requires driving, the defendant now runs the risk of prosecution for driving on a suspended license, which will bring in another $1200 fine for the government upon conviction. Can't pay? The court will order a convenient monthly payment plan at 50$ a month until the entire amount has been paid. Such fines can financially destroy a working class person and cripple a middle class person. But by far the worst indictment of the criminal drunk driving laws that I can think of were the types of people the law sucked into the torture of the criminal justice system. In my experience the majority of defendants had no criminal record and no experience with police or the courts. Unlike other classes of criminal defendants, who were mostly young males, DUI defendants were just as likely to be elderly, or middle aged women, or thirty-something professionals, as they were to be young males. This suggests that the problem is not with the defendants, but with the law. The frusteration, fear, and humiliation was obvious to anyone in court who cared to look, and I was embarrassed to be part of the system that was torturing them.
Sorry, I just can't get into this. My old roommate used to rail about how "I can drink and drive. Other people might not be able to do it, but I can. It's an individual thing."
One night we were watching one of those local news specials where they have a reporter drive an obstacle course--you know, in and out between the cones--and then take one shot of whiskey, wait for fifteen minutes, then drive it again.
Of course the guy doesn't even feel the slightest effects, but this time he knocks over four or five cones, he can't drive the course.
My roommate claimed it was all a set-up job, that the reporter purposefully knocked over the cones, etc.
Don't drink and drive. If you're pulled over and fail the sobriety test--or refuse to take it--your *ss is in jail, pal. I don't wanna hear any of this Libertine sh*t.
Does your comment mean that you find no merit at all in any of the basic issues of fairness or constitutional issues he raises?
Or, do you feel that a drinker, regardless of the effect or lack of consequences of their drinking, are menaces and should all be locked up without regard to their constitutional rights?
As every first year law student knows, liability for negligence requires an unreasonable risk and damages. Yet California's 23152(b) criminalizes the mere creation of a risk – and query whether a .08 driver poses a real risk – without respect to any damages or consequences at all.
Well this guy obviously SUCKS as a lawyer. He mixes tort law with criminal law. And it is a retarded argument. Reckless endangerment (a crime) doesn't require that anyone actually be injured or damages be inflicted.
Let's give some examples that show how stupid this argument is:
1. Shooting a gun at someone and missing, apparently wouldn't be a crime in this guys law book.
2. Storing Dynamite in your aparment inwould be perfectly legal unless it went of.
3. Driving on the sidewalk at 100 mph is okay as long as you don't hit anyone.
I could go on and on. I don't mind arguing the legal limits but when he argues that injury, death or damage has to occur before a crime is commited, it's ridiculous.
Note as well, the libertarian, who belongs to a party and supports an ideology that stresses responsibility and accountability. Yet he cries crocodile tears for all the wonderful drunks that can't possibly know if they are over the BAC limit.
I guess having five scotches in an hour isn't enough of a tip-off. Or falling over when you walk.
Yes, his whole argument is bunk. In addition to the examples you cite, it seems to me that the author thinks it is OK to drive in the usual manner of someone who is extremely intoxicated. We can see the driver weave in and out of traffic, ride while scraping along the road divider, pass out, drive onto a sidewalk, etc. But we cannot do anything about until he actually hits a person or someone's property.
So if the guy hits a girl on the sidewalk, its OK up until the millisecond he hits her.
Shocked and horrified at these miscreants I am...
"When citizens cannot know how to conform their acts to the law..." Earth to Moron: Citizens CAN know how to conform their acts to the law. It's called not drinking. I don't think this guy is a libertarian. I think he's a somewhat functional drunk honing his case for the rationalization of driving drunk.
I was thinking he was a drinker too that doesn't want to be hassled by "the man."
I've always meant to do a vanity post one day on this, but for now...How about a "Safe Drunk Driving" campaign. We know that people are going to drive drunk no matter waht we do, so why don't we teach (starting in High School) some techniques to reduce the accident rate. You know, drive slow when you are drunk. Avoid heavy traffic when you are drunk. Place your hand at the "one o'clock" position then extend your thumb upwards. Keep the dividing line on your thumbnail.
PS: This is not an attempt to parody "Safe Sex" campaigns. This is serious. Really. Do not attempt to find a hidden agenda here.
Could the libertines at LewRockwell.com be any more irrelevant?
I am always amazed by people who claim to be conservative (as evidenced by your screen name) yet can not grasp that this nation has it's roots in Libertariansim; not your apparent concept of Abe Lincoln conrservatism.
There are (and always have been in this country)laws and penalties for injury to someone else or their property. Maybe you've heard of the term common law. Used in its proper context, these laws penalized the results of criminal and negligent behavior. It is the recognition of what can utlitmately happen to someone if they actually commit a crime or injury to another person/property that keeps people in check. Common law requires an injured party. Can someone show me the injured party for blowing .08+ into a breathalizer? (Don't say the state; who in the state was injured?).
The real question should be is why did the Federal Govt (and enventually all the states) want to merge common law and equity law into the colorable statutory law we have today. Could it be that they thought the pesky consitution was getting in the way of government business? The DUI laws are nothing more than another boot on the necks of the people and a HUGE revenue source for Govt.
they did the same test once with nascar drivers, and their results IMPROVED after drinking, they had to squash the story.
they did the same test once with nascar drivers, and their results IMPROVED after drinking, they had to squash the story.
Oh, some big conspiracy? What are you suggesting, drivers should take a shot or whiskey before they drive?
Come on, it is reasonable to have laws against drunk driving regardless of having an injured party.
One night we were watching one of those local news specials where they have a reporter drive an obstacle course--you know, in and out between the cones--and then take one shot of whiskey, wait for fifteen minutes, then drive it again.
Of course the guy doesn't even feel the slightest effects, but this time he knocks over four or five cones, he can't drive the course.
My roommate claimed it was all a set-up job, that the reporter purposefully knocked over the cones, etc.
If the reporter took one shot of whiskey and knocked over 4 or 5 cones, it was a set-up job! Either that or the reporter weighed 43 pounds.
One shot of whiskey (equivalent in alcohol content to one beer) is not enough to make someone too drunk to drive.
Don't drink and drive. If you're pulled over and fail the sobriety test--or refuse to take it--your *ss is in jail, pal. I don't wanna hear any of this Libertine sh*t.
I don't have a problem with people getting pulled over for weaving, etc. However, I DO have a huge problem with "sobriety checkpoints" and the like - they are un-Consitutional and have no place in a free society.
Answer this for me: If you have a BAC of higher than 0.08 (the legal limit in most states now), but have committed no driving violation, why should you be arrested?
I am continually amazed by the crowd here at FR that seems completely incapable of discussing fine points of constitutional issues without blasting off into emotionally driven knee-jerks. Yeesh, and I thought liberals were emotional.
The issue is not about drunken driving. It's about the dividing line between reasonable standards and constitutional rights. Unless you all wish to go ahead and outlaw all alcohol again, we're going to have to deal with some amount of alcohol being-- legally-- consumed in public places, and drivers that have had something to drink that day before they got behind the wheel.
My complaint about the .08 limit is two-fold. First: Most people can be at or near .08 and still exhibit NO outward signs of intoxication either in their speech or their driving. They don't necessarily even weave or have noticably slowed reaction times. The ONLY way to enforce a .08 limit (as opposed to .10 or .12) is to do roadblocks with breathalyzer checkpoints. Show your papers please. Yes, I DO have a problem with police roadblocks being set up in America. Safety my a$$. What's next?
Second: He touched on it above, but a real problem with laws like this is that there is no way for a driver to know FOR SURE whether or not they are breaking the law or not. If you have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner and drive home, are you breaking the law? Probably not. But-- it's the "probably" that is the problem here. It's like having speed limits without people having speedometers in their cars. You just have to stick within what you think is OK, but you don't really know until you are arrested and then it's too late.
PLEASE don't flame me back with sob stories about your kid that was killed by a drunk driver and now you're on the big crusade. I'm not and will never defend drunken driving. I'm not someone who drives after drinking and I've never been arrested for it to make me now grind axes about it. It's not about the sloppy drunk that really does need to be taken off the road. What this is about is shabbily thought-out laws that don't really have an impact on the basic problem, and yet they encroach on ever-disappearing rights.
We must be vigilant about our rights or we will lose them. The places we must be MOST vigilant are the places where EVERYONE goes along with the popular tide of emotionalism. The indefensible acts that people do are the places where the erosion starts. "It's for the children, you know..."
Again, where's the source? I watched this show on Channel 13 in Mobile, AL, ca. 1987. Where do you get your info regarding the results of the test you allege were were squelched?
However, I DO have a huge problem with "sobriety checkpoints" and the like - they are un-Consitutional and have no place in a free society.
I don't. You're on a public highway (where, incidentally, my wife and my daughter were also driving when they were each struck in separate incidents by drunk drivers). I have no problem with submitting to a sobriety test (of course I don't drink so why would I?)
Answer this for me: If you have a BAC of higher than 0.08 (the legal limit in most states now), but have committed no driving violation, why should you be arrested?
Because you've broken the law.
We make the laws, you know. Drunks--er, excuse me, "social drinkers"--appeared before the Texas State Legislature when such legislation was pending here in our state. They had their shot at being heard, and so did the rest of the public.
The law was passed, and now you're "legally drunk" if your BAC is 0.08 or more.
It's simple: DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE. It's a matter of personal responsibility. You Libertines are all for that, aren't you?
Let's give some examples that show how stupid this argument is:
1. Shooting a gun at someone and missing, apparently wouldn't be a crime in this guys law book.
analogies are dangerous things, often misleading and inflammatory. the author is not advocating that people engage in dangerous behavior. he is criticizing the overreaching power of the state. his main point is that the mere attainment of an arbitrary limit of alcohol to blood percentage is not adequate evidence of a 'crime'. i assert that shooting a gun at a person w/o fair cause is a crime. however, i do not believe driving a car with an elevated level of alcohol in the blood is necessarily a crime. the analogy is obviously dead out of the gate because shooting a gun at people is not a regular task where the only danger is secondary to the primary purpose. bypassing that hurdle, it doesn't deal at all with the issue of impairment; it's essentially meant to strongly imply that somebody driving a car with an alcohol level above .08% is putting other people's lives at inordinate risk. i do not agree. i'll bet you would happily have fallen in line years ago with the normal .15% limit and decreed everything below that safe. now what do you do? when will you step in and say that enough is enough? should the limit be .009%? why not. i wish you would address the underlying issue of state power using arbitrary, often irrelevant, criteria, rather than throw out pointless analogies which do nothing but ignore the complexity at hand. i would primarily like you to address the constitutional issue of how the federal government got involved in this in the first place. please direct me to the part(s) in the constitution whence this 'authority' to blackmail comes.
2. Storing Dynamite in your aparment inwould be perfectly legal unless it went of.
same issue applies as above, but i'm guessing you would have the police searching random apartments for dynamite. another point of the article which you didn't get to yet.
3. Driving on the sidewalk at 100 mph is okay as long as you don't hit anyone.
driving at 100 mph on a sidewalk is almost always dangerous behavior. driving with an elevated (above arbitrary limit) alcohol level can be safe all of the time for some people. are you going to argue next that only people with fast reaction times should be allowed to drive on public roads? what about old people? why should i be penalized for slightly reduced reaction times if i can still kick the pants off 80% of the drivers out there? what is the proper level of the penalty? i hope you understand that we accept statistical deaths every day for the sake of convenience. why should alcohol and cell phones be the fall guys while we allow utter morons to drive unsafely every day w/o those 2 supposed impediments? these are all significant issues which you ignored before you 'could go on and on'. i'd like for you to go on and on.
I could go on and on. I don't mind arguing the legal limits but when he argues that injury, death or damage has to occur before a crime is commited, it's ridiculous.
where was it that he argued that? i agree there's an overtone of that, but i didn't see an explicit argument stating what you just did.
We must be vigilant about our rights or we will lose them. The places we must be MOST vigilant are the places where EVERYONE goes along with the popular tide of emotionalism.
yep.
The issue is not about drunken driving. It's about the dividing line between reasonable standards and constitutional rights.
While I pointedly agree with your observation concerning the tenor of debate here on FR, I would submit that in this case, "reasonable standards" is most certainly a topic for hot debate.
I think you ought not to drink and drive, PERIOD. No excuses. If you get pulled over and tested, and you're drunk, I say throw your sorry, no-good, irresponsible drunk *ss right in the slammer, and get your DL suspended for a year. NO tolerance.
Why am I so adamant about that? Well, I'm just an ordinary guy, but I PERSONALLY know one family that was almost completely wiped out by a drunk driver. I have known others, including my wife and daughter, who were hit by drunk drivers though thankfully they were not hurt.
I have a friend whose wife was laid up for six months due to injuries suffered by a drunk driver.
This isn't even an issue for discussion for me. I don't give a d*mn what you think your "rights" are in this case. You're a direct and absolute menace to me and mine if you get into the driver's seat of a car when you've been drinking.
I don't want to hear it. It's just garbage, the kind of sh*t that Libertines are always vomiting up for us to look at. Just shut your cake-holes about it.
he is criticizing the overreaching power of the state.
Well, I in turn am criticizing the obnoxious insistence on the power of the individual who desires no responsibility toward others, whether it's drugs or alcohol.
This is just plain bullsh*t. To pretend that none of this matters, that we ought to whine and snivel about being "forced" to behave with a certain decorum so that we don't injure or kill someone else is just nauseating to me.
Libertines suck. Period.
I have no problem with submitting to a sobriety test (of course I don't drink so why would I?)
i'm very curious where you WOULD draw the line. seatbelt checkpoints one day, license checkpoints another -- what would be a fringe issue for you? would you like to be stopped for random ekg's under the argument that heart failure could cause you to wreck into, and kill, somebody else? i'm very interested and completely serious about this. please tell me where you draw the line. thanks.
i'm very curious where you WOULD draw the line. seatbelt checkpoints one day, license checkpoints another -- what would be a fringe issue for you?
Yeah, we can talk about it. But drunk drivers kill. They kill other people. I don't care what in h*ll you do to yourself, but you have threatened my wife and my daughter in the past, and I'm pretty much fed up with it.
You are totally misrepresenting what he said. He is saying that .08 is not dangerous. He is saying that the police in an effort to get tickets and money will prosecute people even though they have not even drunk that much. He is saying that they are arresting people who they have not seen commit a crime (after they stopped driving and are no danger) - and this happens where I live too. People who are too drunk, realize it and stay in their cars in the parking lot are arrested for drunk driving. He is saying that this is just plain extortion and that the police do not care about safety. Lew Rockwell is absolutely correct. They want the money and they are destroying lives to extort money from people.
I think you ought not to drink and drive, PERIOD.
i am issuing a challenge to you, right here on free republic: if we can agree to defining terms, i'll be willing to bet you $1,000 that i drive better than you with a .08% bac than you do with none. are you interested in setting this up and putting your money where your mouth is?
I don't give a d*mn about your opinion. The law says differently, and I have that on my side.
Care to wager that when the cop catches you drinking and driving--and it sounds like you do that regularly, my alcoholic friend (are you getting the help you need?)--you're *ss is in the jailhouse?
Your attitude disgusts me.
You, like my ex-roommate, are a classic study in denial, by the way. I do urge you to seek help.
", it seems to me that the author thinks it is OK to drive in the usual manner of someone who is extremely intoxicated. "
.08 is not intoxicated at all let alone "seriously intoxicated".
I don't agree with everything the article said, but I do agree that.08 is too low a threshold for calling it DWI. The laws are to get the wiped out of their minds drunks off the road. Obviously the wiped out bunch were still driving and the law was not working-what to do? Well the lawyerly thing to do is what government always does-if you can't stop the law breakers under present laws, you make everyone law breakers-the scoff laws are still out there, but the arrest and conviction record is really impressive. It is exactly what they are doing with gun control laws-is everyone too dense to see the pattern?
The 0.08% is not "too low". It is essentially the equivalent of having between 3 and 4 hard drinks in an hour for the average-sized person.
Your attitude disgusts me.
so you admit you're a crappy driver then? ROFL.
fyi, i'm not a drunk, and i'll wager i ingest far fewer controlled substances than you. c'mon, we gotta wager something here, chicken boy.
One has no right to operate a motor vehicle after consuming any amount of alcohol, in my book. If you drink don't drive? BS You know if your going to need to drive and then you don't drink. Check points and laws be damned, this should be an article of faith with people. I know, I know, that isn't likely. So we need to educate better and have the weight of the law to help convince people that drinking is not a choice when you plan to drive.
You are just sliming the person and no .08 is not drunk. It is barely two beers for most people. The point of the article is that the law is being enforced unjustly and being used to extort money, not for safety. If the law was about safety, they would go after people who are not driving properly. Also, alcohol is not the only thing people drive under the influence of. Pot smokers, cocaine fiends, etc. are definitely just as dangerous or more and nothing is being done about those bums.
Is anyone who disagrees with you about this by definition an alcoholic?
What would you lower the limit to? .06? .04? .02? (Note: you can't make it zero since about .02 is as low as current technology allows it to be measured in the field.)
Since fatigue and inattention is responsible for more accidents should we have checkpoints for that too? Just exactly how safe to you want to be and what is it worth to you? How much freedom should we give up for absolute safety?
Answer this for me: If you have a BAC of higher than 0.08 (the legal limit in most states now), but have committed no driving violation, why should you be arrested?
Well, driving with a BAC over .08 IS COMMITTING A DRIVING VIOLATION.
If I'm sitting at a red light, and no cars are in sight, and I decide to run the red light, should I get a ticket?
If it's the law, why did we make such a law?
It's a law that most citizens have agreed to live with. Does the redlight law state that I have to broadside someone before I get a ticket?
Is it unconstitutional to have a law enforced against someone who has done no real harm?
(Or a gunman with bad aim?)
I challenge you to drive through a slalom of landmines while drunk (.08 BAC is just fine). To sweeten the deal, let's ask your libertarian pals to fill up all available seats (without seatbelts of course).
You are why the Libertarian Party is the steadfast fleshy broadside butt of jokes among thinking people.
Ramius:
Perfectly stated.
Illbay:
Heil Hitler!
Drunk driving not a crime? Bull. No body HAS to drink, and since drinking increases incoordination in driving, a TRUE libertarian would say that we each have to take the responsibility to drive only when competent. Since alcohol and drugs interfere with our ability to judge if we are incoordinated, too many drive when intoxicated and kill many innocent victims.
As for making it impossible to know when one is drunk: The level in most states is 0.8 to 1.0. This is equivalent of two beers or two ounces of alcohol for an average sized man (women are prone to higher levels, since the blood level is higer when the percentage of fat is higher, so a small woman this would be half).
This would allow one cocktail, one or two glasses of wine with a meal, or one or two beers with a meal. It would not allow you to drive after consuming a six pack watching the superbowl...
Drugs are even worse, since the half life of alcohol is one ounce per hour, so if you had three beers over two hours, you could still pass the legal limit if you are a man, but Marijuana has a half life of one week, so there are cognitive changes in chronic smokers who consume three or four cigarettes of marijuana a week.
I would take your drunk driving challange and raise you to $10,000.
Citizens CAN know how to conform their acts to the law. It's called not drinking.
Oops... must have been my mistake. I thought drinking was legal.
Marijuana has a half life of one week
Huh?
I would take your drunk driving challange and raise you to $10,000.
ok. propose terms (e.g., location, criteria, course, judges).
You are why the Libertarian Party is the steadfast fleshy broadside butt of jokes among thinking people.
i am not a member of the libertarian party. btw, your moron challenge conveniently sidestepped the relevant issues. just one more example of trying to inflame while NOT making a logical point. very good.
The issue is not about drunken driving.
Depends on the what the meaning of "is" is, Bill. Go peddle your horse manure to someone who believes it is beefsteak.
"My roommate claimed it was all a set-up job, that the reporter purposefully knocked over the cones, etc"
When man's conclusions turn against reason, man turns against reason. Don't remember who said that, but it fits here I think.
This was not a good start to the article ...
The state criminal statutes concerning drunk driving are unjust, and are so vague and broad that certainty of compliance with the law is impossible. Far I can tell, simply not drinking before driving would negate this opening axiom!
Oops... must have been my mistake. I thought drinking was legal.
So is rank stupidity, otherwise you'd be serving a life sentence.
Typical selfish Libertarian argument:
"I smoke pot and I can hold down a job so it should be legal."
"I'm a macho-man self governor who can drive perfectly while ripped to the tits so everyone should be allowed to."
"Come on, it is reasonable to have laws against drunk driving regardless of having an injured party."
I could agree with you on one condition - that there were no fines given to drunk drivers, that the government lost money enforcing drunk driving laws instead of making money. Then I think we might have fair enforcement and we might have safety of the driving public as the standard for enforcement. What we have now is just plain extortion.
Fardels is a swell human being. I dunno, you think he'd wait for the bodies to cool under the tires before lamabasting the corpses for ruining his God given right to drive drunk?
Typical selfish Libertarian argument:
i think you underestimate the ultimate power and art of the libertarian position. you certainly don't understand it, as demonstrated by your inability to succinctly state the arguments which true libertarians would make. but we've been through this before, die. should i really try to convince somebody who's stated he'll be something until he dies? you probably don't care, and neither do i. good luck being a conservative til you die. just don't tread on me.
Drunks for the LP.
Horse Puckey.
Believe me, the LP'ers on this thread wouldn't be satisfied at just allowing drunk driving. The only thing that would be better would be drunk driving....in monster trucks....while shooting heroin!
AutoCross. Chrysler Proving Grounds, Chelsea, MI. Vipers.
And no crying when I beat your sorry butt.
"Oops... must have been my mistake. I thought drinking was legal"
You do realize that the real agenda behind these self named conservatives is to bring back prohibition. Since prohibition lead to immense surges in the power of the Mafia, the public's disregard for law and corruption of police and judges; I wonder if these self named conservatives are not in reality anarchist disruptors.
i think you underestimate the ultimate power and art of the libertarian position.
Nah, the Libertarian position is pretty primitive and simple:
"I want my dope and whores and f*ck everyone and everything." That really pretty much sums it up.
Drunk drivers are protecting us from the Mafia? Amazing.
The law says differently, and I have that on my side.
speaking of 'the law', what is the supreme law of the united states, and why have you refused to refer to it in this entire thread, even when explicitly requested to? could it be because you just want things the way you want them, law be damned? i'll ask again: please show me where in the constitution the federal government is granted the power to blackmail states into lowering their bac limit?
Driving drunks kill people. Driving with a few drinks under your belt doesn't. A sobriety tests tells you how much alcohol is in your system, not how under the influence you are. Most people have a different tolerance level and sober people pay the same price as some drunk who swerves all over the road. Laws should be for the individual person, not lumped together to save time and money.
Drunk driving not a crime? Bull. No body HAS to drink,
Y'know it's funny. There are hundreds of clubs and bars and other places where they serve alcohol in this city, and guess what? --they have parking lots! I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the people who go to these places may actually drive after consuming alcohol. Horrors!
As someone who occasionally goes to these places and has a drink, I go through great trouble to moderate how much alcohol I drink, counting the drinks per hour. If I feel too drunk to drive towards the end of my visit, I stay an extra half an hour or more and drink coffee. This is called drinking responsibly. Guess what. Lots of people do this.
I'd appreciate it if some of the people on this thread would factor in some reality in their discussion on this topic.
It is articles such as the one that starts this thread that guarantee the Libertarian Party will forever be the butt of late-night jokes, and nothing more.
To the mainstream American voter this isn't about some law-abiding citizen's freedom to act without thuggish interference from the state. It is about some libertine drunk's selfish insistence that he be allowed to put everyone else's life in risk so he can have a good time.
Thank you for a great post. Freedom is more important than mere social "security" or safety. I don't ming taking my chances. I like good food and good wine. If I have two glasses of decent wine with dinner, I resent being criminalized and financially extorted by corrupt governments who are supposed to be working for me. I'm surprised by some of the comments here. I'm more afraid of the government than I am of "criminals" and drunk drivers.
There is an irrational current of intolerant, puritanical and nanny culture fascism and anti-alcohol hysteria going on in this country (and the world) now that is the enemy of freedom and empirical thought. These same people don't want you to smoke, eat meat or sugar either and that's next on their agenda. They want to tell you how to live and raise your children and what to think. Is that what you want? Move to England or Scandinavia.
Individual liberty and freedom is the most radical political and social idea of all times. Freedom is more important than safety or security sometimes. I guess some of you people are for "gun control" too. Vote "Democratic", they love to tell you how to live.
Excellent article, deserving of far wider publication and consideration. On the other hand, I was utterly astonished to read your flubbering, misguided verbal appendage. You and a few other folks here might be more happy in Cuba.
My brother predicted that drunk walking would be a crime in the town that he lives in. Sure enough, he was hassled by the cops while walking from the bar to his house, he was drunk as he freely admits, 150 yards from the bar
The town Newburyport, Mass.
A thread like this is good for sorting out the statist commies from those who truly believe in personal responsibility and freedom. Enforcing a BAC law is no different from enforcing a thought crime law. Now a police officer does not have to prove any impairment, only a certain alcohol content that the state has declared illegal. This puts police on equal footing with any other thug that would rob and assault you on the road, and they deserve the same sort of treatment that a thug would receive.
While I would agree that the .08 blood alcohol level is pretty arbitrary and ineffective, I do not think that drunk driving is a non-crime.
BTW, if Libertarians are so irrelevant, why do some conservatives spend so much time bothering with them?
All you guys are missing the point of this article. This author wasn't trying to defend drunk drivers or drunk driving. He was making the point that many innocent citizens are being dragged through the criminal justice system just because they had a beer or two.
There is drink driving and there is drunk driving. Let's separate the two.
Drunk driving is and should be against the law. A drunk driver puts himself and others in danger. Those people should be taken off the road and it is easy enough to spot drunken drivers on the road. But what of those responsible citizens who had a beer or two, or maybe a couple of glasses of wine, and they have the misfortune to be stopped at one of those infamous "roadblocks", when a cop with a flashlight peers into your car and asks you the fateful question:
"Have you had anything to drink tonight sir?"
Answering anything other than an unequivocal "No" will most likely land your sorry ass in jail. For as soon as you admit that you have had even one beer, the cop is now under considerable pressure to put you under arrest for DUI. For if the officer lets you continue on after admitting that you had even one drink, and God forbid, you should have an accident further down the road, the cop is now potentially liable. No cop is going to risk that. So as soon as you admit to just one beer, even though you are a sober as can be, you are at the very least about to undergo a humiliating field sobriety test and most likely, a Breathalyzer test. And if the Breathalyzer shows the slightest amount of intoxication, guess what, you are not going home that night. For even if the Breathalyzer registers a .03 or .04, well below the legal limit, they can still detain you for operating under the influence, a lesser crime, but one that still has potential to have dire consequences on your reputation and career.
And should you refuse to take the field sobriety test or Breathalyzer, you are assumed guilty. Your license is immediately seized and the fact that you refused the test can be used against you in court. No other law in America forces you to prove your innocence. And there is no possible way that you can prove in a courtroom many months later that you were sober on the night in question.
Let's face it. The drink driving laws are unconstitutional and many innocent people have their careers and reputations ruined by them.
I say lock up drunk drivers. They are a menace. But stop harrassing innocent people at roadblocks who have done absolutely nothing wrong other than having a cocktail or two at dinner (which is perfectly legal).
Have you considered joining AA? Sounds like you could use it.
I knew an old Airline Captain who carried a small flask of whiskey and a .38 Special in his flight case. Took a little nip before he went to bed when on the road and slept like a log, rested and fit for the next days flying. When they introduced x-ray screening etc. he retired. I would fly with that guy anywhere, anyday!
"I think you ought not to drink and drive, PERIOD. No excuses. "
He thinks, therefore we shall!
"If you get pulled over and tested, and you're drunk, I say throw your sorry, no-good, irresponsible drunk *ss right in the slammer, and get your DL suspended for a year. "
Imprecision in language is a totalitarian's best friend. Note that his first sentence urges us not "to drink and drive" implying NO alchohol at all. However, in the very next sentence he states that you have to be drunk, implying that you have to have drunk a sufficient quantity of alcohol. Blurring the distinction between lawful acts and unlawful acts so that noone knows if and when they are committing a crime is the most formidable totalitarian tactic.
"NO tolerance. "
So judges aren't allowed to judge. They must follow the mandates of the executive and legislative branch. How convenient for totalitarians.
"This isn't even an issue for discussion for me. I don't give a d*mn what you think your "rights" are in this case. "
Whew! I'm sure glad he told me this now so I won't have to waste any time thinking for myself!
"I don't want to hear it. It's just garbage, the kind of sh*t that Libertines are always vomiting up for us to look at. Just shut your cake-holes about it. "
And lets not just agree to agree with him. Let's make sure and castigate anyone who would even dare to disagree. Maybe we could start up those hate sessions that George Orwell mentioned in that book of his. What was it called?
"Well, I in turn am criticizing the obnoxious insistence on the power of the individual who desires no responsibility toward others, whether it's drugs or alcohol. "
Overstate the case and create a strawman. Then aim a howitzer at the strawman and blow it to shreds. It isn't a valid debating technique, but it does work. Just ask the ChiComs!
"Libertines suck. Period."
At no point were libertines mentioned in the article or the discussion afterwards. Changing the subject and arguing a completely different point is a good totalitarian tactic. Maybe we should start a war to get everyone excited and with the program? Perhaps a War On Drunk Drivers!
"Yeah, we can talk about it. But drunk drivers kill. They kill other people. "
Other things and other people kill other people. I suppose we need to start behaving more proactively in those areas as well. Oh no, I'm sorry, the program is to eat away at our constitutional rights one at a time so there are not enough people to rise up and fight the tyranny. If you were to be proactive in EVERY battle (no backyard swimming pools, no driving after sunset, no large buckets, no toxic chemicals or drugs allowed in homes except if administered by certified professionals, no use of pesticides on crops, no release of chemicals of any kind corporate or household into the water supply, etc.) then the jig would be up!
"I don't give a d*mn about your opinion. The law says differently, and I have that on my side."
The law says that abortion is OK. The law says that owning certain guns is not OK. The law will soon say that homosexual marriage is the cat's meow. Totalitarians love to quote the law. Just following orders ...
"You, like my ex-roommate, are a classic study in denial, by the way. I do urge you to seek help."
Oh yes, and all crimes are committed by people who need psychiatric help. That way when we put all of these people away, we can say we are doing it for their own good. After all a perfect totalitarian society is incapable of creating criminals. It's just that some of the old bourgeois habits are lingering on and some of the people need to be reeducated and medicated.
However, I DO have a huge problem with "sobriety checkpoints" and the like - they are un-Consitutional and have no place in a free society.
Complete agreement there. Takes the concept of innocent until proven guilty and turns it completely on its head.
This fight here in PA has reached the Supreme Court twice thus far. Shot down both times, but it will get there again.
Is drunk driving legal and smart to do? Of course not, but then neither are DUI roadblocks. Does the first warrant the second? Not in my book.
i'll ask again: please show me where in the constitution the federal government is granted the power to blackmail states into lowering their bac limit?
Blackmail? States are perfectly free to turn down highway money if the majority of voters in a state decide that they don't agree with a particular provision of federal law.
Even without federal money, all states have a bac limit.
Like Rockwell, you think that someone has to die before a drunk can be taken off the road. I, for one, am grateful that an overwhelming majority of my fellow citizens disagree with you.
AutoCross. Chrysler Proving Grounds, Chelsea, MI. Vipers.
i'm going to go to michigan and risking $10k on the strength of that line? c'mon. give me something to work with.
if you are serious about making a $10,000 challenge, then let's get serious. i will consider it, but i will not automatically accept under any terms, especially if it's an unrealistic course/car which you've driven repeatedly and i have not. in any case, that one line is hardly a start on laying down the rules for a $10k challenge. fyi, i am most interested in making the test as realistic as possible, with criteria such as weave tolerance, speed accuracy, ability to stop/start smoothly, etc.
another thing i'm wondering about is what you think will be proved if i lose. i'm serious about that, so please respond if you're interested in really going through with this.
They had "the law on their side" in Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, Amin's Uganda and Pol Pot's Cambodia too. You in favor of that?
No body HAS to drink, and since drinking increases incoordination in driving, a TRUE libertarian would say that we each have to take the responsibility to drive only when competent.
I am a libertarian, and I agree with this. I support laws punishing driving under the influence of alcohol, and other drugs.
Let's flush the laws. Wheeeee! Anarchy, I love ya!
Your insistence that libertarians are only interested in a good time is not well-put.
Over the years, as I have watched this particular discussion it has more to do with what many of us consider to be the unconstitutional imposition of roadblocks and blood tests.
With the exception of inexperienced teenagers the drunk driver who does bodily harm is a repeat offender and stopping him at a roadblock is not going to prevent him from killing someone a day later.
Stopping me to see if I am over the limit, when I have done nothing to suggest that I am drunk, should be unconstitutional.
Have you ever noticed that some of the most reckless drivers are young females with too much hair and chewing gum? Do they kill and maim because of the hair and/or the gum? Nope. They're lousy inconsiderate drivers. The fact that they looked like asses chewing a cud has little to do with it...
If a drunk has an accident, take away his liberty to drive...ever again. If a drunk breathes in your face, ask him to drive home carefully. Other than that, leave me alone with a little bourbon and branch. It is good for the soul...and a little Chianti is good for the heart.
analogies are dangerous things, often misleading and inflammatory. the author is not advocating that people engage in dangerous behavior. he is criticizing the overreaching power of the state. his main point is that the mere attainment of an arbitrary limit of alcohol to blood percentage is not adequate evidence of a 'crime'.
His first argument was about first year law students knowing that negligence requires damages. Secondly, arbitrary limits are imposed in lots of areas of law especially with respect to driving. Speed limits are 'arbitrary.' The state has the authority and responsibility to set these limits on public roads.
i assert that shooting a gun at a person w/o fair cause is a crime. however, i do not believe driving a car with an elevated level of alcohol in the blood is necessarily a crime. the analogy is obviously dead out of the gate because shooting a gun at people is not a regular task where the only danger is secondary to the primary purpose. bypassing that hurdle, it doesn't deal at all with the issue of impairment; it's essentially meant to strongly imply that somebody driving a car with an alcohol level above .08% is putting other people's lives at inordinate risk. i do not agree.
So then let's use the speed limit analogy. Are you saying that your own judgement is all that is required to determine a safe and prudent speed? The reality is that driving is a risk. For me, as a driver, to properly assess the risk of driving on a public street, I must have a reasonable expectation of other drivers. This expectation is found in the laws that govern operating a motor vehicle. The state hsa the authority and responsibility to enact laws that set this expectation. You can disagree about the limits (whether it's 35 mph or .08%) but these limits are set by the elected officials. So challenge your representative, but the authority is there.
i'll bet you would happily have fallen in line years ago with the normal .15% limit and decreed everything below that safe. now what do you do? when will you step in and say that enough is enough? should the limit be .009%? why not. i wish you would address the underlying issue of state power using arbitrary, often irrelevant, criteria, rather than throw out pointless analogies which do nothing but ignore the complexity at hand. i would primarily like you to address the constitutional issue of how the federal government got involved in this in the first place. please direct me to the part(s) in the constitution whence this 'authority' to blackmail comes.
First no one ever decrees that everything below .15 is safe. It was declared that anything over .15 is illegal. There is a huge difference. It was then changed to declare anything over .10 is illegal. Again, the state has the responsibility to set public traffic laws so that drivers can assess the risk for themselves. Voting drivers elect people who will set the risk to the appropriate level. In 1994, we elected representatives who raised the speed limit on highways. If you elect reps who lower the BAC to .08, its a reflection of the risk that citizens are willing to take.
Second, the Federal Government does not set limits on DUI. The Fed regulates federal highway funds. They claim that highways are essential to interstate commerce, they collect taxes to support interstate commerce. They then claim that DUI on Federal Highways affects interstate commerce and they come up with uniform standards. I do not defend the feds role in either setting speed limits or DUI limits. I do defend the State and Communities responsibility to enact uniform laws so that drivers can assess the risk to themselves.
Blackmail? States are perfectly free to turn down highway money if the majority of voters in a state decide that they don't agree with a particular provision of federal law.
perfectly free to turn down the return of their money? that may be your idea of liberty, but it certainly isn't mine. i'll ask yet again: where in the constitution is the federal government given the authority to do this, whatever you call it? please direct me to the actual part. btw, you may want to check out the 10th amendment before responding.
I would fly with that guy anywhere, anyday!
I bet you would. Now, let me find a drunk driver for you to pal around with. Wheeeeee!
all the wonderful drunks that can't possibly know if they are over the BAC limit. I guess having five scotches in an hour isn't enough of a tip-off. ...
Earth to Moron: Citizens CAN know how to conform their acts to the law. It's called not drinking. ...
The law was passed, and now you're "legally drunk" if your BAC is 0.08 or more. It's simple: DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE. ... I think you ought not to drink and drive, PERIOD. No excuses.
One has no right to operate a motor vehicle after consuming any amount of alcohol, in my book. ... So we need to educate better and have the weight of the law to help convince people that drinking is not a choice when you plan to drive.
Far I can tell, simply not drinking before driving would negate this opening axiom! ...
----------------------------------
I have never seen so many essentially contradictory arguments gathered together in one place.
As far as I can discern, all of you people are pretending to care about the law. The law is what is important! you say. You libertine libertarians, don't you care about the law????
But what is your answer to the question, How can I know whether I'm breaking the law? Your answer is: "Simple! Don't drink and drive!"
Uh, that's not what the law says. Nowhere in the law does it say that one cannot drink and then drive, or that one cannot drive a car after having taken a drink some unspecified amount of time in the past.
The law gives a percentage. Below that percentage, it is perfectly legal to be driving. So how dare you guys tell everyone to drink nothing before driving and still pretend that you're only talking about the law! The law, my foot! You guys are talking about temperance, an essentially religious impulse that was especially popular in the late 19th and early 20th Century, and resulted in that wonderful success story called "Prohibition".
By hiding behind "the law", and at the same time ignoring what the law actually says, you are dodging a couple of the main complaints against this law.
One complaint is that the percentage is too low. Some of you have said "no it's not", and then you go on to give an example of drinking five whiskeys. Give us all a break, please. Some people can test above .08 after a beer and a half. What if someone didn't eat or drink very much that day before going to the bar? What if someone is very short and skinny? The fact is that you cannot possibly sit there and proclaim that ".08 requires at least three drinks", or any other number. For all the average citizen knows, one drink is enough to put them over the top. Yet the law doesn't say "having even one drink is forbidden", so what is the average citizen supposed to do? "Obey the law!" you all say. Then, "Don't drink and drive". But those are contradictory. If the law wanted people to Not Drink And Drive, it should say so. It doesn't. So you guys are not getting your advice from the law, you're just making it up out of your own heads, on the basis of your beliefs in the value of being a teetotaler.
This leads us to the second problem. Even if one drink isn't enough to put someone over the limit, no one has any way of knowing. Period. Until all cars come equipped with legally-accurate breathalyzers or something. And it's just incorrect of you guys to state otherwise.
I won't even get to the "prior restraint", Constitutional, or other aspects of the complaint against drunk driving laws. (For one thing, whether this "blood alcohol percentage" has anything whatsoever with how impaired a person is in the first place.) I have a feeling this would fall on deaf ears. After all, you guys can all make the two contradictory statements "Obey the law!" and "Don't drink and drive!" with a straight face, and not even realize it....
"Blackmail? States are perfectly free to turn down highway money if the majority of voters in a state decide that they don't agree with a particular provision of federal law. "
The feds pay between 90% and 99% of highway building expenses, you are going to tell me that withholding such funds is not blackmail? Your arguments are those of a tyrant.
They had "the law on their side" in Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, Amin's Uganda and Pol Pot's Cambodia too. You in favor of that?
Yeah, that was the problem in those countries. They had "laws." Let's get rid of laws because dictators used them.
Wait, Hitler used cars too! And so did Stalin! We should get rid of cars.
Your insistence that libertarians are only interested in a good time is not well-put.
That is the image they have, that will forever be the image they have.
Your suggestion that a drunken slob be allowed to put as many lives at risk on the public streets as he wants, whenever he wants, until he has killed one--or massacred a family--is beneath contempt.
There is an irrational current of intolerant, puritanical and nanny culture fascism and anti-alcohol hysteria going on in this country (and the world) now that is the enemy of freedom and empirical thought.
There may be, but it has nothing to do with drunk driving.
I drink, almost every day, but NEVER before driving. Never.
If so many had not abused the freedom to drink before and while driving, laws wouldn't be needed.
The vast majority of American voters could give a damn about your "right" to drink whenver, wherever, and however much you wish when the lives of their families and themselves are at risk because of your "freedom."
And no. They're not going to wait until you kill them to stop you.
It is articles such as the one that starts this thread that guarantee the Libertarian Party will forever be the butt of late-night jokes, and nothing more.
It is the butt of your jokes, because you have an axe to grind. I have repeated told you I support laws punishing driving while intoxicated. I think this person, who ever he may be, is way off base. For the record, I don't like the articles and writing at Lew Rockwell. I think the author is grasping at straws, and I would be happy to criticize him along with you, but for your asinine attidute.
The libertarians I know personally don't agree with this opinion, though they are suspicious of things like roadblocks.
If you didn't have such a big chip on your shoulder, maybe you would realize there are a large number of libertarians who don't think this way, and who are ready and willing to repudiate someone whose mouth runs away from his brain.
This position sucks. I oppose random checkpoints, but I strongly support police taking drunks off the roads and throwing them in jail.
Acknowledge the fact that I agree with you. Reflect on the truth that were are countrymen. Dismount your high horse, and I'll hop off of mine.
Conservatives have an image of being compassionless; will they always have this image, or may that image change over time?
"Speed limits are 'arbitrary.' The state has the authority and responsibility to set these limits on public roads. "
You bet that speed limits are arbitrary and the more arbitrary they are the more money governments can extort from the citizens. Arbitrary laws are inimical to a free society.
A couple of years ago the Wenatchee World had a story on the front page about a local girl whose car was hit by a drunk driver. While still in the mangled car on the side of the road, she was again hit, from the other direction, by yet another drunk driver. She died.
On the last page of the same paper, the "news of record" included five drunk drivers who were given suspended sentences and little or no fine.
You have no constitutional right to be a dangerous menace to society. I have a friend who says that when he was a teen he used to shoot arrows high over the neighbors house and out of sight. He later saw some of them stuck in the sides of houses around the area. He had no "right" to do that.
When I worked construction, and some pinhead began to laugh and boast about his stupidity the night before, I would go out of my way to ridicule him mercilessly in front of the other men. I would ask him if he remembered who he hit, killed, or ran off the road ... if any families were devastated by his irresponsible behavior ... and then tell him that if I ever found him drunk and behind the wheel, he'd better hope the police got there before I beat the tar out of him for putting my wife and children at risk. That usually ended the "party".
Every group has its loonies and losers, and this article is a display of those among the libertarians. Here is a libertarian who thinks his right to pleasure is absolute, eclipsing the rights of his neighbor. I suspect he would feel differently if his neighbor exercised his "right" to run a jackhammer at midnight, turn his property into a landfill, or build a nuclear plant next door.
Two glasses of wine with dinner and I'm a killer? I don't think so.
The law gives a percentage. Below that percentage, it is perfectly legal to be driving. So how dare you guys tell everyone to drink nothing before driving and still pretend that you're only talking about the law! The law, my foot! You guys are talking about temperance, an essentially religious impulse that was especially popular in the late 19th and early 20th Century, and resulted in that wonderful success story called "Prohibition".
No, the law says you can't operate a vehicle while impaired. "impaired" is then defined to include BAC over .08 but it is not all inclusive. Speed limits are also arbitrary. But it is not an excuse to speed if you don't have a speedometer. So if your concerned about DUI, by yourself a breathalyzer.
Even if one drink isn't enough to put someone over the limit, no one has any way of knowing. Period. Until all cars come equipped with legally-accurate breathalyzers or something. And it's just incorrect of you guys to state otherwise.
Really? Do you have a legally accurate radar gun to determine your speed? Which do you think prevails in court: your speedometer or the cops radar gun? It is your responsibility to comply with the arbitrary speed limit. It is also your reponsibility to comply with the BAC limit.
I don't. You're on a public highway
What the hell does this have to do with anything?!? I guess that the right to travel ends at the end of your driveway?!? What a bunch of crap!
(where, incidentally, my wife and my daughter were also driving when they were each struck in separate incidents by drunk drivers)
This clearly explains why you hold the views you do. I am sorry for your bad experiences - but that does not mean that I am willing to give up my freedoms because of them.
I have no problem with submitting to a sobriety test (of course I don't drink so why would I?)
I have no problem allowing the police to search my property - because I have nothing to hide. However, they aren't going to do it without a warrant and I sure as hell wouldn't support the cops going door to door searching for drugs, etc. (which is the equivalent of a highway checkpoint)!
Well, driving with a BAC over .08 IS COMMITTING A DRIVING VIOLATION.
Have we really gotten to the point to where arguments over laws are won by supporters of that law simply stating, "Because that's the law!"
How absurd.
When slavery was legal, that didn't make it right or Constituational.
Abortion is legal, that doesn't make it right or Constituational.
It's a law that most citizens have agreed to live with.
Bullhockey. It's a law that has been pushed by liberal groups such as MADD in a reactionary state because they or their family members have been hurt or killed by a drunk driver.
I vaguely remember a couple of other similar cases. One guy was arrested DUI while riding his bike and another arrested for DUI while riding a horse.
Pretty soon there will be laws that if we drink a beer sitting in our back porch swing, we'll get a DUI for swinging!
I live in Texas too. And I have done numerous autopsies on drunk drivers and their victims. But it is a lot more complex an issue than you recognize. Conservative til I die and you are wrong to underestimate the implications of this. Splitting hairs is dangerous business. Few among us have the skill, knowledge or dexterity required and the risk of short-changing someone's share of the hair is high.
Life is a risk and the price of eliminating all of the risks would not leave a life worth living. With regard to alcohol, we have seen the other side of the coin, called prohibition. Society recognized that we are going to have accept some victims of drunk drivers. What this article is about is how are we going to define the damages to be awarded to the innocent victims (note that it is the state that wants the award-the first clue as to what the state holds dear) and when and how are we going to punish or reform the behavior of the perps. Again if you look at the history of repeat offenders, the evidence is clear the state cares nothing about safety, this is about power and money.
I used to think that only liberals made decisions on an emotional as opposed to a rational basis. Thanks to FreeRepublic and a few personal experiences, I know that Conservatives suffer from this affliction as well. The differences are in degree and the choice of issues. The Drug War is completely irrational! Anybody want to take me on in debate?
I've wondered why almost all the drinking establishments are driving distance away from residential areas. If you don't want people drinking and driving, then why mandate parking lots? Almost everyone drives alone, and going to bars is no exception.
One solution I think is to have bars, where there is a demand for one, in neighborhoods, where you don't have to drive. But people would holler something about children, property values, what have you.
It can be amusing that a libertarian zoning method would so harmful to children/property values/whatever.
You bet that speed limits are arbitrary and the more arbitrary they are the more money governments can extort from the citizens. Arbitrary laws are inimical to a free society.
I agree about the extortion. I think there definitely are 'speed traps' and they should be thrown out by the courts and elimnated through state laws. But I also use Speed Limit laws to assess the risk to myself from others. For example, if a house I contemplate buying connects to a street that has a 15 MPH speed limit vs. a 50 MPH, and I have children, I may choose the 15 MPH solely on the reduced risk to my family. A 15 MPH law may not stop speeding completely but it does reduce the risk versus 50 MPH.
Two glasses of wine with dinner and I'm a killer? I don't think so.
Maybe you're not.
A real drunk, however, would say "Two glasses of wine with dinner (when he's had five) and I'm a killer?"
He's the guy who needs to be off the road.
Where have I ever said that a drunken bum should be allowed to drive?
You have this juvenile habit of putting words into play which allow you to insult those with whom you disagree.
Stop it. Beneath contempt is a term I do not wear with patience.
Contrary to all the hoopla, the constant tightening of drunk-driving laws...via lowered BACs and unconstitutional search...the rate of deaths and injury caused by drunk drivers still represents the same number as 30 years ago.
The point is simple...drunk driving laws have done nothing to curb alcohol related deaths.
What has been clear is that better highways and safer vehicles have saved more drunks than any roadblock ever will.
Now, fasten your seat belt, because if you intend to keep being a smart-ass I'm going to give you one hell of a bumpy ride.
Agree - Rockwell should pull his head out of his a-hole. I've love to meet this SOB when no one's around and show the handiwork of those who he's defending. Spend a Friday or Sat night in the ER of a major hospital or take a drive with the local PD DUI unit. Rockwell - you're scum.
>Now, let me find a drunk driver for you to pal around with. Wheeeeee!
A medicinal nip like that Airline Captain took before bed is not the action of a drunk. It seems to me that it is the action of one who knows the importance of a good nights sleep during an irregular flight and sleep schedule.
Or was it really his carrying a .38 special in the cockpit that bothered you?
So, what exactly is the difference between ya'll and the rest of the demo
Conservative til I die member since June 22nd, 2001
tbeatty member since November 8th, 2000
Never mind.
The DUI laws are nothing more than another boot on the necks of the people and a HUGE revenue source for Govt.
How right you are! Last night in Atlanta the bureaucrat who heads up the million dollar, federally funded, Georgia campaign to end drunk driving was arrested on a DUI charge. I'm sure he will get off without much problem and keep his state pension whereas the average Joe caught up in this revenue scheme has his life and livelihood put in jeopardy. This whole DUI industry was brought on by the Mommies Against Drunk Daddies ("MADD"), a group similar to the Million Mommy Marchers against guns. Once upon a time judges and prosecutors had the discretion to reduce sentences to public drunkeness, etc. where the individual had a clean record and didn't cause any damage. Then the MADD folks starting sending their spys in and vilifying and publicizing any judges that did this. Next they went to the state legislatures and changed the law to mandatory minimums (same as "zero tolerance" logic)and the huge revenue source you speak of was created.
You bet that speed limits are arbitrary and the more arbitrary they are the more money governments can extort from the citizens. Arbitrary laws are inimical to a free society.
Gore3000, this is a really good point with which I strongly agree. Unlike the author of this article I am no attorney, for which I am greatly appreciative.
The blood alcohol percentage in one's bloodstream should be used as evidence against someone pulled over for driving erratically. It should be presented along with the officer's eyewitness testimony of the person's lack of hand-eye coordination and any other testimony and evidence. Let the jury decide the guilt of the person based on the available evidence, rather than telling the jury ``Here is the document showing this person's BAC as 0.09%. You must convict if the individual has a BAC greater than 0.08%.'' All of the other extenuating circumstances for which juries might acquit become irrelevant. This represents a violation of the separation of power between the legislative and the judicial, similar to that of "mandatory minimum sentences."
Uh, that's not what the law says. Nowhere in the law does it say that one cannot drink and then drive, or that one cannot drive a car after having taken a drink some unspecified amount of time in the past.
Laws being what they are, are the lowest threshold of acceptance in society. My statements are meant to address the individual's choices and to raise the bar of responsibility regarding drinking and driving. You conveniently left out the other part of my post stating that the "checkpoints and the laws be damned". This thread may be centered around the DUI laws but the point I was trying to make had more to do with personal responsibility.
So, what exactly is the difference between ya'll and the rest of the demoCCCPrats cowards that want Mommy Government holding their sweaty little hand and protecting them from every POTENTIAL threat from the cradle to the grave? Are you handgun control inc. members too?
Conservative til I die member since June 22nd, 2001
tbeatty member since November 8th, 2000
Ahh yes, the Ad Hominem attack when your arguments don't hold water.
First, I've been on Free Republic since 1998. Certainly before the date thats listed on your page.
Second, having a law that sets standards so that Free People can assess the driving risk for themselves is a far cry from being protected Cradle to Grave.
Are you an anarchist? Is every law bad since EVERY law is designed to define and protect the innocent? Do you not have the intellect to defend your position so you resort to attacking the person?
Yep, sure does.
Drunk drivers kill people every day. It is a crime and should be. And drunk drivers who kill should be prosecuted for murder.
There's no difference between what you're saying and some vapid soccer mom who had someone she knows get shot and now hates the Second Amendment. You've bought into the attitude that whenever anything bad happens we have to turn it into a political cause. You act as if being reasonable about it implies disrespect for the people you know who've been in accidents causeed by drunk drivers. Well, the idea that mindless hysteria is the only way to honor those killed by some sort of tragedy is liberal soccer mom BS.
The article has a good point: the way drunk driving laws are currently administered is unreasonable.
My daughter and son-in-law work for an agency that does studies with real, living subjects concerning the effects of various ingested substances on driving ability. They do this for both the government and drug companies. I know they have done alcohol fairly recently. They are out of town, today, but when they return, I will query my daughter, who does the data collection, what they have learned regarding specific blood-alcohol levels.
I don't think you will like what I have to report, but, since I am not absolutely sure, not having discussed this with my daughter in any detail, recently, I will wait till she returns.
Nah, the Libertarian position is pretty primitive and simple:
"F**k everyone and everything!
As usual, paine, you distort another poster's words.
ConservativetilIdie was referring to you Libertarians, who are now championing the cause of drunk driving.
"f*ck everyone and everything. That really pretty much sums it up."
Yep, sums up our boys thinking to a 'T'.
I am bookmarking this thread, and I will be sure to report back after querying my daughter regarding the level of driving impairment at various blood alcohol levels found by actual, recent research. There is no point in anyone quarreling about how impaired a driver is at different levels. Research has been done, and I will provide the results.
"f*ck everyone and everything. That really pretty much sums it up."
That's the libertarian slogan, isn't it? Sure looks like it.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
Benjamin Franklin
What a nightmare scenario.
while the person is driving very carefully while drunk, he is trying to install a condom on his Klintoon while lining up this evening's target on his cellphone.
so you admit you're a crappy driver then?
IMO, I'm a good driver, based on the fact that I've never been involved in a collision that was my fault.
I used to be a lot worse driver, back when I got several speeding tickets, and saw the error of my ways.
Since that time, the worst thing that you could say about me is that I have the annoying habit of obeying the speed limit. Around here, that makes you an object of derision, I'll admit.
I have to say that I firmly believe that those who try to make a "constitutional case" out of drug and alcohol "freedom" I conclude that they are likely people with a serious problem. That might be an unfair conclusion, but I suspect that more often than not, it is correct.
``Here is the document showing this person's BAC as 0.09%. You must convict if the individual has a BAC greater than 0.08%.''
The other thing that bothers me about this .08 is whether the person accussed can get a sample to test independently. Otherwise I think the testing lab is under strong influence to give the results wanted by the government. I doubt any tests come back as .79.
You are just sliming the person and no .08 is not drunk.
Yes he is, because we have established this as a matter of law. And I want any and every operator of a motor vehicle who is found to be thus intoxicated behind bars, and out of the path of me and mine.
No ifs, ands or buts. For the first offense, a fine. For the second, suspension of license and jail time. For the third, revocation of license, and STIFF jail time.
I'm sick and tired of it, and most others are, too. That's why the law reads now as it does.
Is anyone who disagrees with you about this by definition an alcoholic?
Er, no, in this case anyone who agrees with me is a lawbreaker and subject to the penalty of the law.
That's really not so hard to understand is it?
If you want the law changed, I invite you to avail yourself of the opportunity to do so by petitioning your legislators for "redress" of this hideous grievance.
Hey, if it were up to me we'd still have prohibition, so don't pester me about "how low I can go."
the analogy is obviously dead out of the gate because shooting a gun at people is not a regular task where the only danger is secondary to the primary purpose
Okay, tweak it just a bit ... how about the guy that goes hunting in a residential area? It's a "regular task" (whatever that is) and has a "primary purpose" that makes the danger to others only "secondary". As long as nobody is hurt, no crime is commited, and the hunter is within his rights - yes? Near misses, bullets zinging past your head - are not an issue? Any numerical limit, such as a minimum distance from a residence, is unfair because the hunter cannot know for sure where the line is? The only hope the neighbors have is that most hunters will avoid residential neighborhoods because of the risk of punishment if they actually hit someone?
That is the image they have, that will forever be the image they have.
I disagree. This is the image you want them to have, despite the fact that there are kooks in every political party. You seem to work awfully hard to portay this image by never agreeing with them on anything, almost always ignoring those who put forth a moderate position, painting opposing positions in the worst possible light, always arguing from authority or against the person, and delighting in your own moral superiority.
You and your equally delightful friend, Cultural Jihad as often as you label people idealogues, are propagandists.
As far as I can determine Hitler was a dictator. We have a system of government that is far from dictatorial.
Hitler's personal whim was the law. Seems to me that's what you're advocating. So who is it I should "heil" again?
The state criminal statutes concerning drunk driving are unjust ...
As if the kookbois over at LewRockwell.com hadn't already marginalized themselves and their anarchist 'cause' enough over "All Drugs - All The Time;" now we get this tripe.
It sure makes it easy when one's extremist imbecilic opponents make asses out of themselves in public like this. Now if we could just keep them out of the gin bottle and off the roads ...
I thought drinking was legal.
Do you understand just how foolish you sound, or how disingenuous?
The subject isn't drinking, is it? It's drinking and driving. It's obeying the law that has been duly established by representative democracy.
You want to continue to assert that the law doesn't matter, because your precious "freedom" to get drunk and constitute a threat to myself and my family and everyone else out on the road, go ahead.
But you are a fool and worse when you try to deflect from the real topic under discussion.
His point was, you can't point to the fact that something is a law as justification for it being a law. Being idiots, you immediately start talking about anarchy. All I can say is, you obvious didn't win the genetic lottery.
A guy says that a particular law is unreasonable. He is answered that it is the law, and if he breaks it he'll go to jail, and therefore he's wrong about it being unreasonable. He says that not all laws are, by the mere fact of being laws, worthy of being laws, and cites some obvious examples. You say that this implies opposition to all laws. Obviously not. It implies opposition to those particular laws. Anyone who isn't a cretin would see this.
Jesse Ventura asked his legislature to spend some time every session repealing old laws that no longer have a point, if they ever did to begin with. Is he an anarchist?
Has the thought perhaps entered your mind that there might be an external reason for a law's existence? That maybe, just maybe, law should come from something other than the will of a ruler?
I'm probably breaking the rule against personal attacks, but your "argument" is so stupid that I frankly don't see how anyone could seriously advance it.
Far I can tell, simply not drinking before driving would negate this opening axiom!
And that is why I continue to maintain that those who are arguing this point are simply people with substance abuse problems who don't want to deal with it. They want the rest of the world to change to accomodate their problem, no matter how many innocents have to die in the process.
It is really disgusting, but I'm glad that they give me yet another reason to detest the Libertine Party all over again.
When I worked construction, and some pinhead began to laugh and boast about his stupidity the night before, I would go out of my way to ridicule him mercilessly in front of the other men. I would ask him if he remembered who he hit, killed, or ran off the road.
------------------------------------
When I ran a construction crew , and some pinhead began to laugh and boast about his stupidity,and would go out of his way to ridicule the other men, --- I would ask him if he thought he was the boss, as I kicked his sorry troublemaking ass off the job.
"Yes he is, because we have established this as a matter of law. "
I guess if we passed a law saying that killing a fly is murder then it would be murder eh? The whole argument here is that the law is an ass. You are not addressing my statement.
Your criteria are artificial.
Microsoft makes money on software. Does this mean that there can't possibly be any benefit to the user, in that case?
"We the People" don't give a d*mn if the government FILLS its coffers at the expense of drunken Libertines. Fine, we'll build more roads, and hire MORE police to arrest MORE drunk Libertines and make it a going concern.
Of course you REALIZE that if you drunks would stop drinking and driving, our coffers'd dry up. What better way to get revenge on us blatant opportunists, eh?
i think you underestimate the ultimate power and art of the libertarian position.
Uh, right. That'd be manifest exactly HOW, again? Your powerful showing in the last election?
So long as you keep thinking your making headway, I'm happy for you to do just as well as you have been doing. Which is going absolutely "nowhere."
Face it: People are tired of hearing how the weaknesses of others need to be turned miraculously into virtues. And I, for one, am sick of your taking the name of "Liberty" in vain.
Count me as one who'd LOVE to see Prohibition back again. Since folks like you can't use your liberties in a responsible fashion, I vote for suspending them--in your case, at least.
What are you suggesting, drivers should take a shot or whiskey before they drive?
Yup... that is EXACTLY what I suggest. EVERY american should get plastered at least once a year. And be required to drive after one, then two, then three or more scotch', double shot bourbons, or tequillas...
You never know when you will have to drive AFTER having a drink... or five, therefore, it pays to keep up your skills under the influence.
I also think tee-totallers should move to one state where they can regulate EVERYONE who lives there... and the rest of us, could live our lives without their obsessive fixation for regulating the rest of us... "for the children".
I also think MADD should lose their tax exempt status as they are clearly a political organization that supports specific candidates and policies...
We don't need no stinkin' "social police." < / end of anti-socialist police state rant >
My understanding of the Constitution is that it gives the states the right to conduct their affairs as they see fit. The Federal government is and should be strictly limited, but the states, being closer to the will of the people, are not.
When this nation was founded, we had all sorts of laws restricting "private" behavior. You could not commit adultery, for example, without coming in danger of imprisonment.
So your argument that we "restrict liberties" today that we didn't at the time of the nation's founding is shot full of holes.
I REPEAT: We have a right to protect ourselves from those who don't give a d*mn about anyone or anything outside of their own selfish interests, and that includes drunk Libertines on the expressway.
So stuff your high-and-mighty attitude.
I agree. The Libertine philosophy is destined to be nothing short of fodder for continuing arguments on FR. It has nothing whatsoever to do with reality in the United States, and never will, thank the Good Lord.
Libertines are too loony to take seriously (but I admit they provide great entertainment value).
Freedom is more important than mere social "security" or safety.
Good, I agree. So my freedom to drive without fear of being hit by a drunk is more important than the security blanket that you poor besotted substance-abusing Libertines simply have to clutch to your drug-addled bodies.
Couldn't have said it better m'self.
I don't give a d*mn about your opinion. The law says differently, and I have that on my side.
Hmmm, so if we still had legal slavery in this country you'd agree with that because it is the law? I would hope that you don't think that the law is moral because it is the law?
Me? Distort what? --- Whereas, here YOU are, saying the same lie.
Drunk driving laws have been found to be constitutional time and time again. So this is an empty argument.
I will not be slave to the weaknesses and addictions of others, period.
0.08 and you're a ward of the state. Sorry, pal.
Go have a double bourbon kevin... you anti-libertarian folks are like a broken record... can't you regurgitate something new and insightful... instead of something rude and inciteful?
Not drinking alcohol INCREASES your risk or heart and circulatory diseases in your later years... So does eating too much pie, sugar, mashed potatoes and gravy... I suggest that the folks who overeat too much, increasing our costs for medicare, and drink to little, further increasing the cost of our medicare insurance, need to be fined $500 or more for each "fatty boy" meal they eat without drinking the one to two glasses of wine or equivalent alchohol, to help mitigate their socially unacceptable and unhealthy habit of "pigging out," especially when they order goo-slathered desert in front of the "children." As this is particularly an unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle choice, NEVER to be seen in public or demonstrated in front of our children... what kind of message are we sending them?
God HATES sin... and gluttony is usually discussed right along drunkenness within a verse or two in the bible.
Gluttony kills. Stop Glutonous living. Do it for the Children. It is the biblical thing to do...
What a bunch of bunk you anti-liberarians are... and yes, the things you say look just as ridiculous to us as what I said probably sounds to you. Get over it.
To illbay, there ARE no limits to what government has the right to do... as long as it has some sort of contrived "justification" that allows the socialist nazi lovers of this nation to thrive and EXPAND their reign of terror.
Pass me the SAUZA, I want a drink.
No, .08 will produce quite a buzz, unless one is a "practiced drinker" a.k.a. probably an alcoholic. .08 is a bright line standard, much easier for a court to apply and for a citizen to understand than "well, he looked drunk to me..". You might as well complain that your five year old should vote, or your eleven year old should be given a driver's license. She can drive on you farm as much as you like, but when she wants to use public roads, society gets involved, and one must conform to some rules. We do not live in isolation. What rule does this writer advocate? A different standardfor every individual? Nice, but not possible, or practical. Back to law school for this Californicator.
Nah, the Libertarian position is pretty primitive and simple:
"I want my dope and whores and f*ck everyone and everything." That really pretty much sums it up.
Good point, that does distinquish the Libertarian party. I would be hard pressed to distinquish the Republican party from the Democrat. Except for maybe theocracy, corporate welfare, and compassionate conservative which is a little less socialism than the Dems like with a heavy dose of the government sponsored religion.
The main problem with those darn Libertarians is consistancy.
Golly! It's catching! A regular creep plague.
i'm very curious where you WOULD draw the line. seatbelt checkpoints one day, license checkpoints another
Someone has said that analogies can be very dangerous things ...
Are you trying to say that some driving with their license or seatbelt is as much a menace to society as the alcoholic who boasts of his driving abilities, and is all the more confident while intoxicated?
In answer to your challenge, I'd draw the line on the safe side of reducing the hazard to others, rather than maximizing your right to selfishly and irresponsibly risk the lives of others.
Conservatives have an image of being compassionless
What is compassion? Allowing people to do as they wish or being reasonable?
I'm a Masshole, I won't appeal a ticket with out talking to a lawyer, I can afford it, What About Those Who Can't?
This whole thing is a tax, imposed on the people to raise money for Gov vote buying. The sucker moms forgetting their drinking and toking days. my Little Brittney is going to the Junior Prom, where she does some Coke, grass, and is penitrated in verious places by other members of the class. She is killed on the way home by a friend, BA .06, driving another vehicle.
Whose problem is this?
The solution is simple: Go after bad driving, be it a result of drinking, drug use, phone use, makup application, dog petting, old age, kid slapping, laptop usage, radio tuning, the list could go on and on.
Why drunk (by the gubbmint's standards) driving has become the focus of the highway patrol and the locals is no secret - MADD. They have become one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, and, like most lobbies, are never satisfied.
They want complete and total abstinance when it comes to alcohol and the roads. Watchout. What was .10 became .08 - Do you really think they will stop there?
How about we just ticket bad driving (like I witness on a daily basis down here in God's Waiting Room), rather than set up road blocks, and park outside of bars in order to reach the quota for the month?
A guy that is .11 is in most cases less dangerous than the little old woman (most likely sitting on the Yellow Pages) that I watched slam into a car with two kids in it last year in the Publix parking lot.
Someone has to have the nutz to stand up to these MADD people sooner or later, or later will be sooner, and you won't be allowed a beer with your dinner. It's right around the corner.
Speak to thyself, 'strela'.
It is about some libertine
drunk's selfish insistence that he be allowed to put everyone else's life in risk so he can have a good time.
I don't believe the libertarian party does not think killing someone or damaging property is not a crime.
And if the state's preventative measures were so effective why does it seem that so many drunk drivers who do kill someone have a suspended license and several past DUI convictions?
Seems to me if the state was serious about the consequences of drunk driving (remember drunk driving is not inherently a crime against a person or property) then destroying property or killing people while being drunk would be an aggravating factor. And you would think the penalty would be particularly steep. I think a minimum prison term of 5 years as a result of causing a crash while drunk would have far more effect to keep people from driving drunk than do our current methods. But even that would not stop if from happening. People will always commit crimes no matter what the penalty is.
"[D]runk drivers who kill should be prosecuted for murder."
Another unadulterated example of unthinking hyperbole. Sorry, but neither life nor law are not as simple as you seem to believe.
I'd draw the line on the safe side of reducing the hazard to others, rather than maximizing your right to selfishly and irresponsibly risk the lives of others.
You mean like 10 mph speed limits on highways?
Speed kills you know.
Oooh, check your decimal points! 1.0 would certainly kill a hapless soul. I'm sure you mean .10, clearly a very high standard. .08 is damn high.
When I was a lowly deputy prosecutor, the State Police got several members of our staff, the City workers, etc., and had them drink, wait, test their breath, and drink more until they reached .10 (the limit then). The folks in my office said they weren't fit to drive at .04, some of them less. And ALL of them said they'd never drive in the condition of even .03 or .04 Betcha your local constabulary might accomodate a request to test you like this.
Ahh yes, another Ad Hominem attack. We don't agree with you so we're idiots. Since you didn't cite the particular argument you disagreed with, I'm at a loss as trying to decipher exactly what it is your are talking about. When I went to "75" I saw that someone was using Hitler et al as an argument for why laws aren't justified.
It is, of course, ridiculous to use Hitler's use of laws as a justification to repeal them. Just as fallacious is to use Hitler as a reason to enact them. It's a poor argument and I used absurdity to point it out.
I'll let you determine the depth of your own intellect in your failure to grasp that.
This guy is an idiot. Its OK with him if someone drives blind drunk. Then the day they hit & kill his wife & children where will he stand?
Not drinking alcohol INCREASES your risk or heart and circulatory diseases in your later years...
Not drinking also increases your ability to avoid hitting a child who may have run out in front of your moving vehicle. A little foresight, maestro. How would you really feel if you were unable to avoid an accident because your reflexes were inhibited by alcohol? It may haunt you for a while. Nothing good ever happened to a person specifically because he/she had been drinking. You can only attribute the bad stuff to alcohol consumption.
0.08 and you're a ward of the state. Sorry, pal.
I sincerely hope your kind are the first ones they lock up for driving with hangnails... or eating too much fat producing, health reducing food.... its would certainly be great. "Sorry Illbay, you have to submit to MY Rules because I am the STATE... and I have made this a law, at the behest of the elected representatives of the people. Regardless of YOUR preferences or desires, and YOUR diet impacts our health insurance costs, YOU will be forced to comply. PUT down the steak, drop the spoonful of pudding, and step away from the table, keeping your hands where I can see them... If you don't drop that steak knife now, I will call in the swat team."
Statists... who needs them.
As our nation becomes more and more "libertine" as you like to call it, folks with your statist bent, will find themselves very, very uncomfortable. I relish the thought of folks being free to do what they want.
But, it drives your kind insane. You are and would be completely out of step with our nation's founders, and most of our leadership, up until about 1992.
The point oh eight limit is in trouble. The drug war is in its final stage of the death-throes. And a LOT of folks KNOW and want what THEY believe their bill of rights guarantee. Sooner or later, government will come to recognise those rights mean WHATEVER the people want them to mean... and your group-think state-worshipping crowd will be gradually moved out of the picture.. as the "legitimate role" of governments, state, federal and local, shrinks to fit the people who justify their existence.
More and more government officials and politicians are openly discussing "relaxing" the war on drugs, or outright legalization, ending the IRS or the tax code as we know it... and a host of other "libertine" concepts. I hope that those who are addicted to the nanny state, lose their jobs as public enforcers of morality, and get real ones where they have to live the dictates of their own conscience in the 'real' world, like the rest of us do, without the aegis of governmental FORCE on such ridiculous concepts as the .oh-eight, limit.
No other law in America forces you to prove your innocence
Actually you have the red light cameras which assume the owner is the person commiting the crime
But what is most interesting to me is how the car, the supposed method of freedom for Americans, is the center of so many of our losses of freedom. Granted, we are talking about driving on government roads, but nontheless our freedoms tend to disappear on the road. Our car can be stopped and searched for no reason at all, just because we happen to drive down a certain road. Our car can be seized without a trial if we have drugs or in Chicago pick up a prostitute in our car.
"Hitler's personal whim was the law. Seems to me that's what you're advocating. So who is it I should "heil" again?"
It is my "personal whim" to be able to drink a couple of glasses of wine, or a couple of glasses of beer, or a couple of shots of whiskey and still be able to drive home without fear of arrest.
It is not my whim to get rip-roaring drunk and then get behind the wheel and drive like hell.
It is also my "personal whim" to be free from actions which violate my constitutional rights, namely the one where it says I am innocent until proven guilty.
I also don't like the idea of random checkpoints which frankly seem rather third-reich-ish to me.
There was a great post a couple of months back. An article explaining how the founder of MADD has now been declared persona-non-grata by the current fascists that run that organization. It seems even she thinks that 0.08 is too low.
How terribly libertine of her!
"[H]ow about the guy that goes hunting in a residential area?"
I could live with that, provided the hunter was of decent skill. Few hunters if any, however, would be so foolish. There isn't much wildlife in my trailer park.
If the Libertarians want to legalize drugs, why not alcohol?
I don't give a d*mn what you think your "rights" are in this case.
Yes illbay, and therein are the roots of your anti social behavior and disgusting abusive language... you want YOUR rights, but dont give a damn about what others think are THEIR rights. That is tyranny run amock.
NOBODY is justifying vehicular homicide. It is just that folks who have ANY alcohol can be charged, whether or not they "blow" .o8, or less, even nothing. NO OBJECTIVE standard is what this article is about... regardless of what side of the libertarian argument you are on... do you really want, an arbitrary AND subjective measure of what is or is not acceptable behavior.... at the same time?
arbitrary (.08, objective law) and subjective (under the influence no matter HOW low it is in an officer's opinion) in the same structure of laws regarding intoxication?
Realise that with the subjective standard, you could be suspended if the officer believed you had been drinking even if it was a stranger at a restaraunt who spilled his beer on YOUR shirt that "tipped off" the officer who pulled you over for no reason?
I know, you hate libertarians and therefore they are always wrong... It would behoove you to respect what the people "think" are their rights.... as one abuses the rights of the citizenry of this nation, at their own peril. The police state will not protect you from "angry citizens" who may mistakenly assume they have the right to use force in protecting themselves and their families from folks they perceive to be state loving intrusionists...
In your usual fashion, you, once again, distort.
I was correcting you misquoting another poster, not agreeing with that poster.
But, this is what I have come to expect from you, by far the biggest jerk on this forum.
Yup... that is EXACTLY what I suggest. EVERY american should get plastered at least once a year. And be required to drive after one, then two, then three or more scotch', double shot bourbons, or tequillas... You never know when you will have to drive AFTER having a drink... or five, therefore, it pays to keep up your skills under the influence.
Hey, maybe we should set fire to our houses just to keep ourselves up on our "home fire safety skills". Hell, why don't we just set fire to our childrens, it would be good "stop, drop and roll" training for those little buggers.
Your post is idiotic.
It is my "personal whim" to be able to drink a couple of glasses of wine, or a couple of glasses of beer, or a couple of shots of whiskey and still be able to drive home without fear of arrest.
More power to you. If you can have a couple shots of whiskey without impairment or without exceeding .08 BAC, drink and drive away.
It is not my whim to get rip-roaring drunk and then get behind the wheel and drive like hell.
"Rip-Roaring drunk" isn't the standard. It is too objective. So society chooses a .08 BAC as the standard. .08 lets me assess the risk of driving on a Saturday night not your "Rip-Roaring" standard. It also allows me to determine (crudely) how many drinks I can have per hour without exceeding .08.
It is also my "personal whim" to be free from actions which violate my constitutional rights, namely the one where it says I am innocent until proven guilty.
And I hold that "Pursuit of Life (liberty and happiness)" clause pretty dear too. And you are innocent until proven guilty. If you are arrested for criminal DUI, you will get a jury trial before you go to jail. I also don't like the idea of random checkpoints which frankly seem rather third-reich-ish to me.
I don't care for DUI checkpoints either. But they have been ruled constitutional so there's not much you can do at this point. The checkpoints were recently restricted however.
There was a great post a couple of months back. An article explaining how the founder of MADD has now been declared persona-non-grata by the current fascists that run that organization. It seems even she thinks that 0.08 is too low.
.08 may be too low. I don't claim to be an expert. My point has been that the States have the authority and obligation to set clear standards just like speed limits so that people can assess the risks of driving for themselves and to provides guidelines on how to comply.
you know... I read you often and disagree quite vehemently.. on this one... you are dead on target. I cannot drink like you and walk, let alone drive. But I can drink three or four "blonde bachs" or three shots of "sauza" and function better than any of these incompetent elderly women drivers over 65 who cannot see over the steering wheel... and run over the bicycle in our drivway.
Everybody KNOWS their limit, and (I think) should test it frequently (like two times a week, heh heh) to make sure they can still drink a couple of shots and walk, talk, add, subtract, call for a cab or drive after a couple of hours...
Know your limits, don't exceed the limits, and if you do accidently, be humble enough to call a cab or ride the bus home... If you routinely exceed your limits... you can get help. That applies to everything, food, drink, sex, work, exercise and all. Who is it that said "moderation" should be the key?
Great comments by the way.
The issue is not about drunken driving. It's about the dividing line between reasonable standards and constitutional rights.
I contend that everyone would think that "reasonable standards" are different. We have to set some standard. If, for example, I am impaired with one drink and another person is equally impaired (to outward appearances) with 4 drinks, what should the standard be. Should the standard be 1 drink (and the corresponding BAC) for me, or the BAC for the 4 drink person? Some people apparently can "handle" more drinks. While I would object to sobriety checkpoints if I was a drinker, I do not object to them. I know of several people who have been injured or killed in drunk driving incidents. I also know people who personally have problems with drinking and that is why I've chosen to stop drinking.
Do we want to wait until a drunk driver kills someone to get the drunk driver off of the road? How would you feel if your loved one was injured or killed by a drunk driver just because you were against the "standard"? Think about it.
"States have the authority and obligation to set clear standards"
How is something a clear standard if it takes an expensive scientific test to determine?
I would be happier with the limit (never with 0.08 but with 0.1 maybe) if breathalyzers were freely distributed by police departments so that people could check themselves before entering a car.
After all, if we are going to be pragmatic about this, they why wait until the driver gets to a checkpoint or is discovered by a police officer? Why not get him on his way out of the bar?
Oh, I forgot, the police departments exist to make money for the bloated governments they serve, and not to save lives!
"I cannot drink like you and walk, let alone drive."
I think you may have accidentally replaced the or's in my post with and's! ;-)
If I drank like that I would be hard pressed to find my car keys even if they were in my front pocket!
"[H]ow about the guy that goes hunting in a residential area?"
I could live with that, provided the hunter was of decent skill. Few hunters if any, however, would be so foolish. There isn't much wildlife in my trailer park.
And there's the crux. "Decent Skill?" How dare you impose your arbitrary standard. Why you probably want someone to take a test or something to "prove their skill." Maybe we should enact a minimum score law to enable neighborhood hunting.
The reality is that laws that set expectations of behavior that allow people to secure the blessings of liberty are necessary for our Republic.
Actually the best architect I employed, who consistantly won awards state-wide, worked well for me... and was a doper... He DID work far better when he was "mellow" and got along fine with his coworkers... including his boss... ME.
A fellow manager prompted me to fire him... a loser "christian" who hated others for their "sins"... and who of course NEVER won even one award of any kind. I think he was on valium or other prescriptive himself. What a moron!
He really hated my "doper" architect.
I have to admit that my "doper" architect only failed to win awards when he did NOT use pot. It was to him, like other 'prescriptives' were to my legalist coworker.
To make a blanket statement and say "all dopers are unable to keep their jobs or do them very well," based on my experience would be patently false. I only required that the guy did NOT smoke on company grounds or on his lunch hour where folks could see him. At the time, the laws regarding pot were pretty liberal. Possession for personal use was NOT illegal, and possession in amounts suitable for minor distribution was treated as a misdemeanor.
That was a long time ago.
That day is about to return to this nation. I don't abuse illegal drugs of any kind, but find the laws to be stupid, and not in sync with the way things really are... Today its all about the statist hype to promote the "reefer madness" paranoia.
Anything to expand and reinforce those dollars of tax revenue that go to promote the twin wars... on drugs and guns.
"Drunk drivers are protecting us from the Mafia"
Were you drunk when you wrote that?
by far the biggest jerk on this forum.
I agree with tpaine more often than not, but his jerkiness is apparent to all that read him. I don't think he would argue about that. I'll go so far as to say he does it on purpose. But " by far the biggest jerk on this forum"? He's not even the biggest jerk on this thread. Have you read Illbays replies?
Who is it that said "moderation" should be the key?
I believe it was Audrey Kishline who said that. In June of 2000, the article 'Moderate Drinking' author pleads guilty was written about her after she killed two people in a drunk driving accident. Moderation worked for her, didn't it?
</sarcasm>
Drunk walking? Now that is something I can relate to...three years ago, my husbands father had walked to a bar, had a few drinks, and was walking home...one his way home, he crossed the street, was two footsteps from being on the sidewalk, when a speeding van hit him, threw him into the air, and within minutes he was dead...when my husband put in a claim with the car drivers insurance company, the insurance company stated they would pay nothing, as my husbands father had alcohol in his bloodstream, and therefore had caused his own death...needless to say, we got a lawyer, and now the insurance company has agreed to pay a partial amount, which is still being haggled over by the lawyers..this happened in Chicago...
My husband and myself live in Olympia, Washington....we do not have a very high crime rate here, so the police spent most of their evenings over the weekends, hiding behind bushes, and in other spots, just looking and watching for drunk drivers...we know this, and know that should we go out for dinner, have a few drinks with dinner, and then drive home, and should one of us accidentally swerve for be deemed to driving erratically, we would be immediately be stopped by the police...so for years now, when we go out for anything, which might involve even just a few drinks, either one of us, usually me, does not drink at all, and does the driving, or if we both want to have a few drinks with dinner, then we take a cab back and forth....its a hassle, but we do it, to avoid any hassle with the police...
I work graveyard shift in a nursing home....one day I had worked 1/2 half of an afternoon shift, and then my entire graveyard shift...I was pretty tired when driving home in the morning, and apparently I weaved a little while driving...sure enough, I got stopped by the police...at first they questionned me about drinking, and I had informed them that I had left work just 15 minutes before...gave them the phone number of where I worked so they could confirm that, which they did..still not satisfied, they seemd to believe I had probably been drinking on the job, which I had not...they could smell no liquor on me, they confirmed I had been at work, yet they still wanted to administer a field sobriety test on me...I refused, and told them that if they insisted on taking me in, I would file a complaint and then I would sue them...I suppose I was blowing hot air, as I really did not know what they would do next...reluctantly they backed down, and sent me on my way...but they were sure angry, that I was not drunk...
1. I'll take you up on your wager that you ingest far fewer controlled substances. Is that one a $1000 bet, too? Should I freepmail you the address to send it to? LOL
2. You're stupid wager is an emotional argument that does not argue the issue in general terms, and makes you look like a desperate man losing an argument.
How is something a clear standard if it takes an expensive scientific test to determine?
I believe there are somewhat inexpensive devices that can be purchased. Also, there are guidleines that will estimate your BAC based on rate of consumption, weight, etc. There are even breathalyzers that can control your ignition (you must blow clean to start the car).
I would be happier with the limit (never with 0.08 but with 0.1 maybe) if breathalyzers were freely distributed by police departments so that people could check themselves before entering a car.
Why, as a taxpayer, should I have to pay for a device to help YOU comply with the law? If you chose to drink and drive, YOU should pay for the device to check your BAC if you want to check your compliance before being pulled over.
But I have another question. I assume you don't have a breathalyzer so how do you know that .10 is reasonable but .08 is not? I've never had a breathalyzer so I'm not sure what the difference between .08 and .10 is. I used to know how many drinks I could have (based on a chart) but I don't have a .08 chart (or a .10 chart anymore).
Also, as an analogy, you have a speedometer in your car. Not an expensive radar gun like the Police use. They won't provide you with an expensive radar gun either. But guess which device prevails in court? And not having a speedometer is not an excuse for speeding.
"Count me as one who'd LOVE to see Prohibition back again."
I asked if the real agenda behind these self named conservatives is to bring back prohibition. I appreciate your honesty in answering the question.
Since prohibition lead to immense surges in the power of the Mafia, the public's disregard for law and corruption of police and judges; I wonder as a self named conservative have you thought about the consequences of your actions and are you willing to take responsibility for the type of society prohibition will bring about?
A real drunk, however, would say "Two glasses of wine with dinner (when he's had five) and I'm a killer?"
He's the guy who needs to be off the road.
Not necessarily.
Click here for a BAC calculator
I happen to be a 250lb male. According to this calculator, if I consume 5 drinks over the period of 2 hours (not unreasonable for a dinner), my BAC would be 0.0532.
Furthermore, even if it was only over a one hour period, it would be 0.0652.
So, save your generalities for someone else...
Have you read Illbays replies?
Yeah, but I agree with most of his sentiments.
You're right about tpaine. He e-mails me vitriol-filled missives, and admits that he wears his obnoxiousness with pride.
I take a cheap shot or two myself, but even I don't have the venom tpaine does.
I say "asses" and you show up. Cause and effect?
What I find vexing is that one night I can go out to dinner, have a glass of wine while ordering, 2 with dinner, and an after dinner drink, and drive home completely legally. However, the next night, assuming the .08 limit goes into effect that day, I am then a criminal.
Am I the only one who finds that scary?
"Since folks like you can't use your liberties in a responsible fashion, I vote for suspending them--in your case, at least."
Such a response to a rhetorical question.
What I find interesting and one of the reasons why I call into question the real agendas of most of the self named conservatives on this thread is that I bet no self named conservative on this thread will call you to account for calling for the suspension of civil liberties.
Many conservative scholars would say that calling for the suspension of civil liberties in general and applying this suspension to an individual in particular is the definition of tyranny. You don't support tyranny, do you?
According to this calculator, if I consume 5 drinks over the period of 2 hours (not unreasonable for a dinner), my BAC would be 0.0532.
If you consume five drinks over a two hour period, I don't give a damn what the "calculator" says. You have no business driving.
You're also a lush.
I had to read all the way down to post #15 before I found someone who used some common sense and reason willing to discuss the issue. I am beginning to think that Freepers are sheeple too.
Fulltime lawmaking in this country is like a run-away cancer killing this nation a law at a time. When it is all done, socialism will be left standing it its ashes.
I am probably violating a dozen laws as I set here typing this.
Recently a cop car followed me for 15 miles. It was very a very difficult 15 miles. The speed limit changed from 25, 35, 45 and 55 mph. I could get a ticket for going above the speed limit, but I could also get a ticket for obstructing traffic and going too slow. Once stopped there are a hundred tiny violations I must have been committing. Being law abiding with the current plethora of laws is impossible. The only escape, it seems like, is a low profile and fit in among the sheep.
Red text from #103 down, at least in one browser. Fixed?
Your response ... your screen name ... Bwahahahahaa!
You stupid selfish old sots would do us all a favor if you would just exercise your right to drink until you pass out in your own vomit, endangering no one but your sorry self.
Causing the loss of life, limb, or property are crimes. Do you support the un-Constitutional "safety checks"? If a person has a traffic accident, that person, regardless of the cause should be found liable. Whether drunk, stoned, or just plain stupid, the person who caused the wreck should be held accountable. Are you going to argue BAC of 1.0 vs 0.8? Can you say arbritray? Sure you can.
Regards
J.R.
No, but the law reflects the morality of the people who frame it. To me, it is the AMORAL view of the Libertines that leads to the attitude "the hell with you and yours, I'm going to do what I'm going to do, no matter how it affects you."
Ironically, the Libertines continually couch their rhetoric in terms of "victimless acts," but they define "victimless" in a way that it suits them.
If they were truly concerned ONLY for those actions that affect no one else, that'd be one thing. But most of the things they rant about--drug use, drunk driving--are so blatant in their potential--often realized--for collateral damage that it is no wonder they are frequently laughed to scorn.
<"ConservativetilIdie was referring to you Libertarians, who are now championing the cause of drunk driving."> "Championing the cause of drunk driving"? I don't think so. I think what the opposition (and all of those insane Libertarians!) here is saying is that some of the laws and "zero tolerance" mentality are extreme and not reasonable and are inimical to the spirit of liberty and the Constitution. There's a difference between killing someone with your car while driving really drunk and driving home after a dinner where you've had a modicum of wine or beer. The .08% is unreasonable for all sizes and body types. Lets get rid of all booze and while we're at it, all the guns too. And what about those kitchen knives and baseball bats. You can kill somebody with those too.
If you want perfect safety, stay home. If you want to live in a free society, you have to take some risks to live free yourself. Zero tolerance and non discretion is fascism. The laws are here to serve us within the boundries of freedom and liberty and not be used as tools of oppression by those that disagree with your choices. Some people can't handle freedom.
The speedometer is not a good analogy to the breathalyzer.
I looked into this for some reason and found out that the only easily available breathalyzers are "yes/no" types where they tell you if you are over a specified range or not. They are not like speedometers where you can gauge when you are approaching a speed limit.
Also, if you read propaganda from MADD or police departments, they are always fudging about those drink charts. They may mention them, and they may (but seldom do) mention the actual number of drinks you are supposed to be able to consume before going over the limit, but they ALWAYS end their spiel with "Just to be safe, don't drink at all!"
This is the kind of fascist nonsense which gets me incensed.
The police officers (and MADD, their volunteer goon squad) are basically telling me that the only way I can be certain of not violating their arbitrary law is to not drink at all.
The analogy here is that the only way I could be certain of not driving "too fast for conditions" would be to ride a bus.
It is truly sad in my mind that we at FR can't even agree on this sideline issue. There truly is no hope for America. We will end up as a European style welfare state no matter what. People crave security more than freedom.
We are doomed. And soon I won't even be able to ease the pain with an occasional shot of Jameson.
... you anti-libertarian folks are like a broken record... can't you regurgitate something new and insightful... instead of something rude and inciteful?
First of all, I'm not "anti-libertarian," I'm "anti-Libertine." I am completely "anti" the newfangled, back-to-the-70s-Me-Generation flavor of licentiousness that you people continue to palm off as "libertarianism."
The fact is you want to do your drugs, you want to drink and drive, you want to ensure that vices are elevated to virtue. You are OBSESSED with it.
Browne could've elevated the rhetoric in the last election, but chose to continue the obsession with legalized drugs.
You don't even bother confining the rhetoric only to the abuses by government authority. It would be one thing if you said "regardless what the laws against drug use are, we have to stop the excesses of law enforcement."
But no. You have to say "NO laws against ANY behavior, REGARDLESS of the implications for anyone else."
The final straw is the dolt that continued to insist to me that an unborn child is like a "parasite" on the mother and has no "right to life" because s/he was (somehow!) an "uninvited" guest in the womb.
It's complete and utter self-absorption and shameless hedonism. It's despicable, and can't even be taken seriously except as the same sort of sideshow act exemplified by people like Catherine MacKinnon or Al Sharpton.
The solution is simple: Go after bad driving,...
Ah, I see. And "bad driving" we will conveniently define as the slaughtered bodies of an entire family lying out on the side of I-65 just north of Mobile, Alabama in 1989.
The girl had a blood alcohol content of 0.10, right on the needle for that time.
The mother, father, and four children had little blood left in their bodies, and no pulse.
She had been arrested for driving drunk several times, but was let off each time because we didn't take that stuff very seriously down South.
Had she been rotting in a jail cell as she should have been, the family would have been spared.
Once life is destroyed, it's sort of too late to determine just how bad her driving was.
I don't believe the libertarian party does not think killing someone or damaging property is not a crime.
No, but the Libertines adamantly believe that licentious activity is precious, more precious than POTENTIAL loss of life. If it hasn't happened yet, don't punish it, I guess.
Sounds good, until you remember that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It is SO SIMPLE to obey this law, SO easy. And obedience thereunto is SEEMINGLY in line with the precious dictate of the Libertine Party: Don't hassle anyone else.
By failing to kill me, or some member of my family, or the man or woman living down the street, you have done a very good thing. Sounds like "win-win" to me--unless your compulsion to drink has completely distorted your sense of values.
It's that realization--that drunks and druggies will subordinate anything and anyone to their vicious habit--that leads me to recognize that Libertines are, by an large, addicts and users. Nothing else explains their obsession.
If you want to live in a free society, you have to take some risks to live free yourself.
Of you want to get snot-sniggered drunk, stay home and don't get behind the wheel of a two-ton piece of machinery and drive on the public roads. My family and I have a right to live our lives free of risks caused by your irresponsible abuse of your "freedom."
If you can't agree, then I guess I'll have to sic the cops on you when you stagger to your car and try to drive away. You can whine about your loss of freedom as you rot in jail. I'll give you a dime and you can call someone who "cares"--Harry Browne.
I sincerely hope your kind are the first ones they lock up for driving with hangnails...
Give it up, man. No one is buying this outside your loyal little group of addicts.
The laws are tough, and they're going to continue tough, because people are tired of being endangered by hedonists and those who don't give a rat's *ss about anything outside their own buzz.
Your frustration is evident. You're not going to win this one. No, we're not turning "libertine," not by a long shot. So long as your "leaders" obsess over legalization of drugs and relaxation of drunk driving laws, you will remain a laughing-stock.
It is my "personal whim" to be able to drink a couple of glasses of wine, or a couple of glasses of beer, or a couple of shots of whiskey and still be able to drive home without fear of arrest.
It is my fervent prayer that, if you ever do this again, you are put so deep in the hole you'll never see the light of day again.
You disgust me.
If they were truly concerned ONLY for those actions that affect no one else, that'd be one thing. But most of the things they rant about--drug use, drunk driving--are so
blatant in their potential--often realized--for collateral damage that it is no wonder they are frequently laughed to scorn.
You take the view of most statists in this country. You seem to be stating that if there is a potential condition which might take away someone's life or property there should be a proactive government law to stop that conditions from occuring. So the easily reached conclusion of your assertion is that there are no rights of man. The government has a power and obligation to protect people. So the governments obligation superceed any rights man may claim. I'll agree that is where we are in this country today. I just don't believe that is the way man should live.
Yes, it's frustrating isn't it? I continue to insist on my right to drive home without being slaughtered by the likes of you, drunk as a skunk and plying down the highway.
You insist on your right to get plastered and then get behind the wheel of a car, heedless of the danger you pose to others.
It's so unfair of me, isn't it?
Everybody KNOWS their limit,...
Every time I think you've outdone yourself with foolish statements, you up the ante.
So, are you asserting that all those people who have slaughtered others on the highway, "knew their limit" but were, perhaps, so upset while driving home cognizant of the fact that they would be arrested if they were pulled over that they were distracted and rear-ended the hapless victim?
Or is it possible that you don't know what the H*LL you're talking about--still?
Here's the standard:
Don't Drink And Drive
I trust that simplifies things for you appreciably. All part of the service.
If you consume five drinks over a two hour period, I don't give a damn what the "calculator" says. You have no business driving.
You're also a lush.
This message brought to you by the Amerikans for Controlling Other Peoples' Lives Foundation
Also by MADD - decreasing the legal BAC limit until EVERYONE'S a criminal! For the children!!
The reason you think me a "jerk" is because I frustrate you with the fact that I won't let you get away with bullsh*t. I've noticed that with you Libertines. Very tightly wound.
There's the libertarians for you: Drug legalization, Pro-Prostitution, Now, PRO DRUNK DRIVING!!!!!
I've never yet met a drunk who knew his limit, but I've met plenty who said they did.
Self-absorbed jerks.
I think that most people do not share my opinion. I don't claim that it will ever catch on, I just realize that Prohibition has been the victim of a huge smear campaign. It actually worked quite well, just as the WoD is actually working quite well in our day.
Yes, there were isolated problems, just as there are problems with drug interdiction and drug law prosecutions today, but the drug addiction problem is far more manageable with the current laws we have than it would be if they were removed. So it was with Prohibition.
Unlike you Libertines, I don't claim that all my pet obsessions are the "will of the people." If I have to hear one more time how "the Libertine cause is growing" when they've made NO appreciable dent in the political landscape of this nation, I'll have split all my guts laughing.
No, Prohibition will NEVER return in my lifetime, and the Libertine Party is destined to be a comic relief act for the foreseeable future.
I might have a view that you oppose, but I'm far more in touch with reality than you.
You don't support tyranny, do you?
No, and that includes the pissant little tyrants who themselves are tyrannized by their addictions.
I refuse to be tyrannized by drunks and druggies.
Where would you draw the line?
I imagine there are many definable risk factors in auto casualties, up to and including heart disease. Their probability values can be calculated. Most are extremely small.
Drunk driving (as defined by some BAC standard which may be too strict or too lenient) has been identified in up to 50% of MVA casualties. That looks to me like a very bright line indeed, and one which the state, in its legitimate duty to see to general public safety, has grounds to enforce.
No, Prohibition will NEVER return in my lifetime...
There are a few folks around here who wouldn't mind.
Self-absorbed jerks.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Well, that was the point of the test done at the television station that I mentioned earlier. You don't THINK you're drunk. You feel fine, maybe better than ever.
But you can't drive the course.
BTW, I got a private email from another fellow who said that he did one of those tests himself when he was a T.V. reporter, and it happened EXACTLY as I described. He had one drink, waited a little while, and then couldn't drive the course without killing cones.
Oh, and BTW, he told me that he couldn't bring himself to post publicly on this thread, because he didn't want the pissant Libertines to harrass him. Since I don't care what those cretins have to say, it's no biggie to me.
Probably very few, but I'm one of them. I think it would be a good thing.
"It is my fervent prayer that, if you ever do this again, you are put so deep in the hole you'll never see the light of day again."
Your totalitarian eyes read and when they should have read or.
With a little more training, Big Brother will have you see five when the rest of us still see four.
Drunk driving laws have been found to be constitutional time and time again. So this is an empty argument.
So have gun control laws. But that doesn't make it an empty argument neither does it mean these laws aren't unconstitutional.
Again, what we have here is a classic case of liberals and statists trying to legislate our problems away. Because some people use their guns to kill people, you guys want to take them away from everybody. Because some people get sloshed, get behind the wheel of a car and run over some poor kid, you guys want to make it a crime for driving after drinking any amount of alcohol.
BTW, I was at a barbeque this afternoon where I had two beers. I drove home just a half hour ago and I am perfectly sober. You want to come throw me in jail? If so, you might as well take the other 50,000,000 or so American males who had a beer today with me. Hell, why not make it easy. Just put a tall fence around your yard and consider the rest of us incarcerated for life.
So you want to bring back Prohibition? Good luck to you pal. Obviously you are ignorant as to just how much of a joke it was.
Here's the standard:
Don't Drink And Drive
I trust that simplifies things for you appreciably. All part of the service.
Thank you for the service. Simplification is what totalitarians are best at. Just follow orders. Just do what you are told. Don't ask questions. If you need support for incorrect ideas then redirect the questions or drum up emotional support for your invalid ideas.
Should I also simplify my warddrobe by limiting myself to brown shirts and black boots?
The issue is not about drunken driving. It's about the dividing line between reasonable standards and constitutional rights.
Yep. Sometimes a debate is too adult. Such is the case, here.
So-called FReepers, alleged lovers of justice and logic, fall off the proverbial turnip truck, when it comes to such a question as this... They'll scream (emotionally), never giving thought to the underlying question: is it reasonable to sacrifice your rights, for a little temporary comfort (or supposed safety)???
As Thomas Jefferson (if memory serves) pointed out, those who would sacrifice liberties for temporary comfort... deserve neither.
Food for thought.
FReegards.
There are a few folks around here who wouldn't mind [a return to Prohibition]
If so, it's because you and your fellow libertine shills have done such a bang-up job convernting them to that viewpoint.
Oh, and BTW, he told me that he couldn't bring himself to post publicly on this thread, because he didn't want the pissant Libertines to harrass him. Since I don't care what those cretins have to say, it's no biggie to me.
I get the same kind of FReepmail all the time. Because I refuse to be intimidated by adult brats who throw temper tantrums, I stand my ground and speak out.
"No other law in America forces you to prove your innocence."
Try running afoul with the IRS.
It's a law that has been pushed by liberal groups such as MADD in a reactionary state because they or their family members have been hurt or killed by a drunk driver.
Puh-leeze. MOST laws are in reaction to some bonehead who can't keep their temper, curb their passions, be content with what they have, or otherwise behave in polite company.
Not every "reaction" is bad, but you just go ahead and keep your hand in the fire.
"Just put a tall fence around your yard and consider the rest of us incarcerated for life."
Priceless.
"Drunk driving laws have been found to be constitutional time and time again. So this is an empty argument."
Abortion laws have also been held to be Constitutional. Does that make abortion moral? Forced bussing of school children was held Constitutonal. Do you support that also?
By the way, I'm not in favor of people driving drunk.
I could agree with you on one condition - that there were no fines given to drunk drivers, that the government lost money enforcing drunk driving laws instead of making money. Then I think we might have fair enforcement and we might have safety of the driving public as the standard for enforcement. What we have now is just plain extortion.
I used to do DUII defense, trust me the government doesn't make any money off of DUII convictions. Although DUII crimes are one of the more unusual crimes in that all levels of society manage to get these convictions, I would say about 1/3rd of the people who get convicted are indigent and use a public defender. In Oregon, it was a struggle for these people to pay off their fines. A lot of the time, these fines were waived. And even though Oregon had some healthy fines, it wasn't even near enough to offset the costs of everything.
In so far as your comment about making money, IMHO, the criminal justice system is a huge money losing enterprise for the state. Then again, it isn't supposed to be a money maker (I would be very concerned if it did). I say this, even factoring in civil forfeiture money, which I think the current system in which the goverment does this is wrong.
Back to money and how much is involved in DUII's. I think the auto insurance companies really stick DUII offenders; then again the amount of money that DUII accidents cost is also a pretty large chunk of change. Finally, you can avoid increases in your auto insurance by doing something as simple as not drinking and driving (or at least not getting caught).
Do you understand just how foolish you sound, or how disingenuous?
Look no further and go and sin no more:
The subject isn't drinking, is it? It's drinking and driving.
No, it is driving DRUNK.
It's obeying the law that has been duly established by representative democracy.
No, the libertarians and others who value the Bill of Rights want to understand why you wish to have the power to stop innocent drivers in the name of preventing drunk drivers from killing and maiming.
That roadblock hasn't saved a single life and you know it and your pal Curry knows it.
You and he are so damned conservative and worried about being whacked by a drunk might want to take the public bus sometime and ride with someone who is really impaired
I'm not the only person here who finds these arguments ludicrous.
It is just as rational for you to advocate a fair shake for armed robbers. Drunk drivers are criminals, and they are and will be treated as such. You get out on the road legally drunk, and you will be prosecuted. That is one of the small satisfactions I can rely upon in this uncertain world.
Again, what we have here is a classic case of liberals and statists trying to legislate our problems away. Because some people use their guns to kill people, you guys
want to take them away from everybody. Because some people get sloshed, get behind the wheel of a car and run over some poor kid, you guys want to make it a
crime for driving after drinking any amount of alcohol.
I would actually say there is a more important force at work, because such people do not want to punish criminals they want to pass more laws to make themselves feel better. What I mean can best be explained by way of a thought I had the other day. I was listening to Allen Dershowitz guest host a talkshow. He of course wanted to say that America has a much higher murder rate (actually I think he was using ablsolute number like most liars do) than other countries due to guns. Then it struck me. One of the biggest reasons we have such a high murder rate is because of lawyers such as him. The US has one of the hardest criminal justice system to be convicted in. The results are many criminals are left to walk the streets. The reason for this problem can be blamed on the lawyers, and the people. Because we don't want to actually make crinimals pay harshly for their crimes and because we have so much sympathy for criminals the forces which would stop these crimes are not fully employed. So many of us come up with a backend solution to fix the problem, pass more laws.
Simplification is what totalitarians are best at.
I like the law to be simple. It should be simple. It should be easy to understand and to follow, unlike the plethora of complex regulations that seem to govern nearly every aspect of our lives in this society.
Why you should turn that into something nefarious is beyond me.
No, "simplification" is not the hallmark of totalitarianism: Obfuscation is. Hordes upon hordes of apparatchiks, counting every bean in every subject individual's life.
How refreshing in our free society to understand certain basic truths: Don't pose a threat to the health and welfare of others. COROLLARY: DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!
It's TOO simple for your obfuscating Libertines, I admit. You love to see shades of meaning in things, to obscure (hopefully) the pitiful reality of your addiction-riddled existence.
Called upon to "prove" my innocence regarding driving under the influence, I will be successful every time. The reason is simply this: I don't drink alcoholic beverages, ever.
Even among those who drink socially, most of them will have no trouble with "proving" innocence. It will be a formality.
The only ones who worry and fret are those who do NOT want to take responsibility for their weaknesses, would fain be assured that they can endanger others without facing any consequence.
In short, it is only the habitual criminal that frets about proving his innocence.
Abortion laws have also been held to be Constitutional. Does that make abortion moral?
No, but it does make it legal.
I don't agree with the sacrosanction of abortion "rights" (unlike most Libertines of my acquaintance). But I recognize that if any changes are forthcoming, they must come through the legal process.
Not all laws are bad. Most are good, in fact.
And arguments that driving drunk is a civil right are ridiculous in the extreme.
You just have to shake your head in wonder at Libertarians who look the other way while druggies (and now DUIes) hijack the party and rant about how freedom is the right to drive drunk and sell drugs to school kids.
No, it is driving DRUNK.
The problem is you claim the right to decide when you are drunk. You don't have that right; you don't have the right to pose a significant threat to me and my family.
When you are caught driving drunk--under the legal definition, not your arrogant sophistry--you will be treated as all criminals should. And good riddance to bad rubbish.
"Have you read Illbays replies?"
Yeah, but I agree with most of his sentiments.
-- Weird, -- You admit to agreeing to irrational lies.
You're right about tpaine. He e-mails me vitriol-filled missives, and admits that he wears his obnoxiousness with pride.
I take a cheap shot or two myself, but even I don't have the venom tpaine does.
- #18 - sinkspur -
--- You just told some 'venom' filled woppers about me, then excused them as being somehow justified by my opposition to your libertarian bashing. Mindspinning bull. ----- Reminds me of 'Strela':
I say "asses" and you show up. Cause and effect?
- You bet. Nearly every ass on FR showed on this thread to bash liberty. You were a cinch to show.
In short, it is only the habitual criminal that frets about proving his innocence.
Unbelievable!
"Called upon to "prove" my innocence regarding driving under the influence, I will be successful every time. The reason is simply this: I don't drink alcoholic beverages, ever."
Good for you. However the context of my previous statement is you shouldn't have to prove your innocence. The state has to prove your guilt. Once we go beyond that we are in serious trouble as a Republic.
I looked into this for some reason and found out that the only easily available breathalyzers are "yes/no" types where they tell you if you are over a specified range or not. They are not like speedometers where you can gauge when you are approaching a speed limit.
Just a quick search and I found two kinds. A disposable "0.08" kit of 10 and a calibrated key ring. The disposable was a yes/no response but the key ring was a ranged model.
It is truly sad in my mind that we at FR can't even agree on this sideline issue. There truly is no hope for America. We will end up as a European style welfare state no matter what. People crave security more than freedom.
People ALWAYS trade "freedom" for "security." For example, we have a Polic Force. HAving a full time police force is choosing security over freedom. I don't think any reasonable person would advocate eliminating police.
Drinking and Driving is a dangerous activity and some people have abused it to the point where MADD is a political force. I wish it weren't so. When people abuse rights through criminal activity, the state will step in because the people will let them.
"Abortion laws have also been held to be Constitutional. Does that make abortion moral?
No, but it does make it legal.
And therin lies the problem.
What was the BAC of the drunks that hit your family and friends? I heard on a radio talk discussion that the drunks causing accidents are way above the .08 or .10%. Te discussion was about the arbitrary nature of setting the BAC limits, and that lowering them would not save a single life because the dangerous drunk drivers are chronic heavy drinkers.
"People ALWAYS trade "freedom" for "security." For example, we have a Polic Force. HAving a full time police force is choosing security over freedom."
How so? If the Police only enforce Constitutional law they do not restrict indivdual freedom. Only in a police state does loss of freedom occur.
Drunk drivers kill people every day. It is a crime and should be. And drunk drivers who kill should be prosecuted for murder.
Stupid, uncoordinated drivers, tired drivers, old drivers, rude drivers and overconfident drivers, as a group, kill many more people than drunk drivers do. Where is the outrage against these equally negligent drivers? If someone skips a night of sleep and kills a family, everyone forgives. Why?
You just have to shake your head in wonder at Libertarians who look the other way while druggies (and now DUIes) hijack the party and rant about how freedom is the right to drive drunk and sell drugs to school kids.
Pathetic, isn't it?
The general consensus of many libertarians here is that they have a right to drive as blitz-eyed drunk as they wanna, whenever they wanna, until and unless they plow into a van filled with schoolchildren, set it on fire and barbecue them all..
Then it's, "Oops."
I used to be a lot worse driver, back when I got several speeding tickets, and saw the error of my ways.
But you should really have gotten a criminal record, not just tickets. Speeding causes a lot of deaths. That way, when you apply for a new job, you would have to admit to your criminal past, not just passing mention on an internet bulletin board. I hate it when I have some speeding idiot in an SUV, like you, on my tail, and I'm in the sub-compact I can afford with my 2 toddlers in the back seat.
If I have to stop short, you're going to plow into my a$$ and kill my children. You deserve to have been arrested and convicted of potential homicide.
I don't want to hear it. It's just garbage, the kind of sh*t that Libertines are always vomiting up for us to look at. Just shut your cake-holes about it.
I picture Illbay with his fingers in his ears saying "lalalalalalalalalalalal" over and over again so he can't hear any arguments he can't refute.
My kids used to do that when they were about 3 or 4 years old.
This is why I can't debate these topics, the ones you are debating (using the term loosly, usually turns into a shouting match) will not listen. They already have their minds made up and no amount of facts or reason will sway them.
Easier debating a liberal over welfare.
Good night all.
The only thing that would be better would be drunk driving....in monster trucks....while shooting heroin!
You left out talking on cell phones. Even better, doing a drug deal over a cell phone. :)
Your reply (#15) makes perfect sense to me. There are too many knee jerks out there who want to impose a new set of intrusive laws everytime a tragedy takes place. These are the folks who rationalize giving up their freedoms with the phrase: "If just one life could be saved by this new law, then it will be well worth it."
The irony of this is, this MADD-driven campaign to set up roadblocks all across America and have cops shining flashlights into our cars to make sure we didn't have a glass of wine or two at dinner, has little effect on the drunk who drinks 18 beers in some tavern and then wipes out a family of 4 in some horrific head-on collision. Then you invariably find out that this drunk had several prior DUIs already and usually a string of other law offenses as well.
But the cops aren't likely to prevent these tragedies under our existing laws. Instead, they are too busy conducting roadblocks and giving field sobriety tests to frightened businessmen who pose little or no danger on the roadways but had the misfortune to be stopped at a police roadblock on the one night of the week they had a few drinks with the boys after work.
I agree that drunk driving is a problem. I stay home on New Year's Eve because of the crazies out there. Any police officer can easily spot a drunken driver who poses a danger to the public. These are the nimrods who swerve all over the road and keep slamming the brakes on in the fast lane. Drunks don't always drive fast either. Sometimes you can spot them doing 35mph in the breakdown lane with the map light on. I've seen it. Put the police back out on patrol and the real dangers to the driving public will be easy pickings.
Conducting roadblocks and hassling citizens who have done absolutely nothing wrong is a tactic of Nazi Germany. Not the United States of America. That other conservatives, or any American for that matter, would support such tyranny in our nation is shocking to me.
Look, whether you advocate drinking or not, the consumption of alcohol is legal. Many people (like myself) drink it everyday in moderation. Virtually every restaurant serves it. Most people consume or serve it in their homes. It is available at almost every public event.
We are a driving society. The notion that we are going drink beer or wine (or even a shot of whiskey) and then hail a cab home to comply with these silly laws is ludicrous. People ARE going to drink and drive. But we need to separate "drink drivers" from "drunk drivers" and not lump them together. It is the latter that pose the problem. And as I said before, it is easy enough to identify them without trampling on the constitutional rights of everybody else.
What in the name of hell are you talking about? All but the last of those quotes were stated by someone else.
WATCH YOUR ATTRIBUTIONS.
How pathetic you are.
I challenge you to drive through a slalom of landmines while drunk
I would have to be drunk to drive through a slalom of landmines. I certainly wouldn't do it sober!
my wife and my daughter were ... struck in separate incidents by drunk drivers
I am genuinely sorry this happened to them, and it helps me understand a lot of your posts, even though I disagree with them. I hope they are OK now.
I would be interested to know though...what was the BAC of the drivers in question? I hope this is not too intrusive. ( I have more of a problem with the .08 level than I do with DUI laws as such.That's why I ask)
...the context of my previous statement is you shouldn't have to prove your innocence...
Ironically, I never have in the thirty years I've been driving, had to "prove my innocence" on anything.
I can remember being asked the "have we had anything to drink tonight?" question ONCE, when I was pulled over in ca. 1984 in Newark, Delaware, by a cop who ticketed me for something like "failing to yield." So obviously there was probable cause or whatever.
What I'm saying is IN MY EXPERIENCE I've never felt hassled or put upon. I've felt irked at getting a ticket for speeding--well, DUH! I WAS speeding!--but that's about the extent of it. I've never been pulled over at a checkpoint, and I've never had my trunk searched. I've never been asked to submit to a breathalyzer.
So to me, this is all a tempest in a teacup, because it isn't an issue. I have to believe that it is not a part of anyone else's daily life either, but then I haven't lived in every state. Maybe in Minnesota they do this, I don't know.
Ergo, my conclusion is this is simply the pique of ire concerning those who WANT to drink and drive, and don't WANT to be told that they don't have the freedom to do so.
To which I respond: "I don't want to have to pay taxes, either, but I do. I don't even like having to file the d*mn forms, but I do."
There are some things to which we must adhere in a lawful society. If we had no recourse to change things, that'd be one thing but we do. That the world won't bend to our will on every score is something that you ought to have learned in Kindergarten.
Probably very few, but I'm one of them. I think it would be a good thing.
Well, I might disagree with that, but I can do so with civility.
As for making it impossible to know when one is drunk: The level in most states is 0.8 to 1.0. This is equivalent of two beers or two ounces of alcohol for an average sized man (women are prone to higher levels, since the blood level is higer when the percentage of fat is higher, so a small woman this would be half).
Not quite so black and white. I weight 240 pounds. So what is it, three, four beers for me? I can drink two beers with a hearty meal and feel absolutely no intoxicating effects at all. Yet my 120 pound sister will pass out on the couch. On an empty stomach, I can feel it more. But even that depends. If I drink two beers, one per hour, I feel no intoxicating effects whether I have an empty stomach or not. Point is, there is absolutely no way one can know whether they are at .06 (legal) or .08 (illegal) without a machine. And even the Breathalyzer machines are notoriously inaccurate. They have to be calibrated all the time and they have been known to register BACs above the legal limit for people who just had a normal dose of cough medicine!
A blood alcohol test is far more reliable than a Breathalyzer. But they cannot be administered in the field. You must convince the police officer to take you to a medical facility where one can be done. Some states allow you the right to request a blood alcohol test instead of a Breathalyzer, but the cops hate it and will almost surely find a way to make it difficult on you if you request one.
In closing, it is fairly easy to frame somebody up on a DUI even if they haven't been drinking. So if a cop doesn't like your attitude, for example, he can take you in on suspicion of OUI even if you pass your field sobriety test. When it comes time for court, it's your word against the cops. I'm not saying all cops are like this but there are undoubtably some bad apples out there.
People that want to sacrifice their constitutional rights in exchange for roadblocks may someday themselves be the victim of a mal-adjusted Breathalyzer or a rogue cop.
If so, it's because you and your fellow libertine shills have done such a bang-up job convernting them to that viewpoint.
If the "shills" on both sides would drop the spin, we might actually have debate...
People crave security more than freedom.
To me this is a ludicrous comment that spits in the face of true liberty.
Liberty is not license. Freedom is not there for you to tread upon the toes of others in single-minded, selfish pursuit of your worldly habits.
Ironically, compared to the time of this nation's founding, we have more "freedoms" than ever before, but they are freedoms to do WRONG rather than to do right.
In the late Eighteenth and early Nineteenth Centuries in the U.S., it was a CRIMINAL offense to have sexual relations with someone to whom you were not married (it was called "bundling" and it was a crime everywhere in the U.S.)
Blasphemy was illegal. Lack of piety was illegal in some places.
It was illegal to dig a well too close to someone else's property line. You could be condemned to death for stealing livestock.
Times have simply changed, but what I see with Libertines and others, is that we've tried to make a holy virtue out of mindless pursuit of pleasure. They want their drugs, they want their porn, they want to drink and get behind the wheel of a car.
And the simple, reasonable and forthright prohibition against those sorts of activities sends them into paroxysms of fury, like a twelve year old who is told she can't wear hot pants and a halter top to the mall.
It's just silly, and it doesn't even merit the description "adolescent". Maybe "pre-adolescent."
Most nauseating of all is the insistence that this indicates a "constitutional crisis." It's not. It's an irrelevant issue--UNLESS you are so addicted to drugs and alcohol that you can't bear to think you might have to forego them for jsut a little while, like the "air-rage" people on international airline flights who have to be let off in Anchorage.
Pathetic.
You say you support the suspension of civil liberties in cases where people question your premises and you also say you do not support tyranny. I truely believe that you can see no inconsistancy in simultaneosly holding those positions.
A cuestion for your self-named conservative supporters. Would you like to have ILLBAY in a position of authority over you? Is she/he the type of person you would like to see in a leadership position in this country?
...lowering them would not save a single life...
So you say it's "arbitrary." I say it is not. I say there have to be limits. I say if I were TRULY dictator, ANY trace of alcohol above that which results from a teaspoon of cough syrup would be actionable.
But they don't let me run things.
So we have a compromise. Neither of us is really "happy" but we can manage.
What YOU want is the subjective "I know when I'm too drunk to drive" bullsh*t. Do you think these people that hit my wife and daughter thought they were too drunk to drive?
The T.V. reporter hit the cones. That says volumes to me.
Go and look up the statistics. You will find that accidents are FAR AND AWAY causeed more often by driving drunk than by any other single cause.
Your arguments are childish.
I was relating a discussion I heard on talk radio. I also asked you if you knew what the BAC was of the drunk drivers, which would either refute or support the talk radio assertions. No need to make enemies here.
But you should really have gotten a criminal record, not just tickets.
Sez who? That isn't the law, and you know it. We're stil in the land of arbitrary subjectiveness: "Only what I think is important is important to the universe."
Sorry, that's not the way it works.
There was a time when indebtedness would land you in jail. It's not that way any more. That's "arbitrary" I suppose, but the fact is if "we the people" want speeding to be punished as a felony, we'd make it punishable as a felony. We don't so we don't.
It's just silly, and it doesn't even merit the description "adolescent". Maybe "pre-adolescent."
Ad hominem alert.
There are too many knee jerks out there who want to impose a new set of intrusive laws everytime a tragedy takes place.
I agree with this sentiment in principle, but that's not what's happening here. This is the result of YEARS of debate and deliberation, and a near-consensus. Not too many non-drunks worry about this.
As far as "all these roadblocks all over the country," I say again I've never personally seen one. Not one. Not one single roadblock (we have roadblocks here in Houston for quite different reasons).
So I conclude this is also a spurious claim, the result of being p*ssed off that you can't drink and drive with impunity.
Tough.
"If I have to stop short, you're going to plow into my a$$ and kill my children. You deserve to have been arrested and convicted of potential homicide. "
Great point but I don't think there is a crime of Potential Homicide. But let's get the state legislatures to create a new law and a new crime "Potentially Maybe Could Sometimes End Up In Manslaughter". And furthermore, have it apply also to people who think about driving too fast.
A cuestion for your self-named conservative supporters. Would you like to have ILLBAY in a position of authority over you?
By your childish, brainless, self-indulgent, libertine actions and decisions you are inviting more and more buttinski authoritarian governmental control over yourself every day. It's a shame you can't see that. You are destroying your freedoms. You are creating a more powerful, intrusive government. You are responsible.
By the time you wake up and realize this, it will too late--for all of us.
"I just realize that Prohibition has been the victim of a huge smear campaign"
Good point - the Spanish Inquisition was the victum of a huge smear campaign and the Salem Witch trials too. You would have fit in well in those places and times. With little or no evidence you could have called someone a jew or a witch and had them killed. Given your belief that anyone who questions you is a "libertine" and deserves to have their civil liberties removed, you would have fit in very well indeed.
Lew Rockwell is the single most self-absorbed long winded obnoxious politcally dimwitted clown to be found anywhere on the landscape outside of Hollywood.
By your childish, brainless, self-indulgent, libertine actions and decisions you are inviting more and more buttinski authoritarian governmental control over yourself every day. It's a shame you can't see that. You are destroying your freedoms. You are creating a more powerful, intrusive government. You are responsible.
More ad hominem attack alert...
The only ones advocating 'more buttinski authoritarian governmental control over yourself every day' are the likes of you. I love this argument that the 'lawlessness' promoted by libertarians encourages authoritarianism...
It's great logic -- so if we gave up all our liberties, we'd be nowhere near authoritarianism... it's a twisted logic that, frankly, doesn't surprise me coming from you, Kevin, because you love twisted logic. There. Throw some ad hominems, get some.
I just wonder how many thousands upon thousands of 'drunk drivers' you've shared the road with, that you never knew were drunk.
Even if you're .40 BAC, if you can keep it between the lines and aren't acting recklessly, where's the crime? It's the same logic as applies to drug-testing at the workplace. The logic is, well, we need to keep our employees working at 'high' levels of productivity!
Well, why not have a productivity test instead of a drug test? If you have a worker who smokes dope all day long, and yet is your most productive worker, what to do?
The bigger point is that the likes of you and Illbay want to frame the argument as such that, in your esteemed opinions, anyone advocating anything other than the current DUI schemes is 'brainless', a 'pre-adolescent', etc...
No. There are legitimate issues involved.
Ahh yes, the Ad Hominem attack when your arguments don't hold water.
First, I've been on Free Republic since 1998. Certainly before the date thats listed on your page.
Second, having a law that sets standards so that Free People can assess the driving risk for themselves is a far cry from being protected Cradle to Grave.
Are you an anarchist? Is every law bad since EVERY law is designed to define and protect the innocent? Do you not have the intellect to defend your position so you resort to attacking the person?
I'm someone who is sick to death of cowards happily giving away my freedom so they can have the illusion of safety. All a legitimate law can do is give notice of what will happen if someone harms someone else or their property.
"law is designed to define and protect the innocent" is the same sort of argument sarah brady and friends use.
Hell, since EVERYONE could potentially drive drunk and kill you or go postal and kill you why don't we just turn the entire United States into one huge forced labor camp so you can feel safe Comrade?
The problem is you claim the right to decide when you are drunk.
Where the hell did I say that?
You don't have that right; you don't have the right to pose a significant threat to me and my family.
I've read enough of your crap to know that I could drink all day and not be as big a threat to your family than you are if you preach like this every day. Damn, you are a thick hick.
When you are caught driving drunk
I don't drive drunk. I don't drive after I've had a drink. We've had designated drivers around since I can remember.
--under the legal definition, not your arrogant sophistry--
Do you have any idea what sophistry means?
you will be treated as all criminals should. And good riddance to bad rubbish.
If you ever catch me driving drunk then throw away the key. As a matter of fact make it a capital crime...but on the stipulation that I can paint all blowhards baby shit brown...you'll need to get rid of that Regimental Tie though. You know? That brown shoe black shoe thing?
"Unlike you Libertines, I don't claim that all my pet obsessions are the "will of the people"
What did I say that makes you call me a libertine? What is your evidence? I think the only evidence you have is that I had the temerity to ask a question about your motives. If you have no evidence you must be halucinating what you think the belief systems of others are.
When did I make any claim that included the phrase "will of the people"? The answer is nowhere. Are you halucinating these things or do you let forth a stream of consciousness without editing yourself?
"I'm far more in touch with reality than you."
I believe that you are far more in touch with your own reality than anyone else.
Thanks for posting that link to that blood alcohol calculator. At my weight (240 pounds, I'll admit it), I would have to drink 6 beers in three hours to approach 0.08. Technically I would still be under the limit 0.0783, but I haven't drank that much that fast since I was getting drunk with my buddies in the Marine Corps!
On an average night, I'll drink two beers over a four hour period. That computes to a microscopic 0.009 BAC and it was posted earlier in this thread that a Breathalyzer doesn't even register lower than a 0.02. Even on nights when I drink more than usual, such as at dinner where I might have three glasses of wine over two hours, the BAC would register about 0.031, less than half of the legal limit.
Even if I went on a diet and got down to my ideal weight of 190 (I'm 6'3" with a heavy frame), my BAC after three glasses of wine over two hours would still only be 0.0482.
So we can dispense with all this nonsense about moderate drinkers posing a risk to the public. Go after the sloppy drunks weaving and bobbing along our highways and leave us law-abiding folk alone.