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