# News & Current Events > Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies >  The Right to Drink and Drive?

## TastyWheat

I haven't seen anyone say they support a person's right to drink and drive, but it sounds like something the libertarians would support.  Drinking and driving itself does no harm and I'm willing to bet most people who drink and drive don't have accidents.  I'm not saying I would support this, but I'm curious if others think the government should intervene in this case.

----------


## lucius

> ...Drinking and driving itself does no harm...


I vehemently disagree with this.

----------


## pacelli

I don't think the federal government should have anything to do with legislative action for or against drinking and driving.

----------


## muzzled dogg

the owner of the road (the govt) has the right to protect her property
she has the right to refuse service to anyone

----------


## Maverick

The statistics are probably overblown, led by fear-mongers like MADD. And one person's "drunk" isn't another person's "drunk."

Shhh....just don't tell SeanEdwards about it. He'll drag you out of your car and torture you near to death before shooting you in the head just for thinking about it

----------


## Kludge

Drinking is a choice. It is a mind-altering substance. You accept all risks associated with it when you consume alcohol, including addiction. I have no sympathy for addicts.

----------


## RSLudlum

here's the lyrics to a song that relates well to the subject; it's by NOFX, a band I grew up listening to in my high school years 

*You Drink, You Drive, You Spill*

I say don't drink and drive
You might spill your drink
Before you get behind
That wheel, just stop & think
You can take your chances
But there's so much to lose
Another bumpy road,
There's so much wasted booze
I'm not so worried
About how many I kill
I'm much more concerned
With how much beer I spill
35% of accidents
Are cause by pixilated
The other 65% are not
Alcohol related
What does this tell us
About the drunk drivers
They seem to have a
Better record than
The sober team

----------


## Danke

> the owner of the road (the govt) has the right to protect her property
> she has the right to refuse service to anyone


Who owns the government?

The majority of voters?  Democracy = tyranny.

There is such a thing as a rule of law (or at least used to be).  You have a unalienable right to travel, a natural or god given right that is outside government.

Your behavior, if you are not directly causing harm to another (common law precept)  is not a crime.

So is driving as the State defines "drunk" a crime?

Can you state any State Constitution that addresses your right to travel as a government granted privilege?

Licenses are for commercial activities that the government has been granted jurisdiction by We The People over which to regulate.

Are you involved in commerce?  If so, then definitely wear your seat belt.  Maybe a helmet would be a good idea too, a law might be in the works, better safe than sorry (fine payer).

----------


## christagious

> here's the lyrics to a song that relates well to the subject; it's by NOFX, a band I grew up listening to in my high school years 
> 
> *You Drink, You Drive, You Spill*
> 
> I say don't drink and drive
> You might spill your drink
> Before you get behind
> That wheel, just stop & think
> You can take your chances
> ...



I used to be a big listener of NOFX too.

----------


## muzzled dogg

> You have a unalienable right to travel


on the government's roads?  a driver's license is a privilege that the state grants you




> Your behavior, if you are not directly causing harm to another (common law precept)  is not a crime.


not according to my state




> So is driving as the State defines "drunk" a crime?


not in and of itself.  but being drunk and driving on their streets, yes




> Can you state any State Constitution that addresses your right to travel as a government granted privilege?


the state owns the road dude.  whether they write in a constitution or on the back of a napkin they have every right to with it as they please as long as it doesn't aggress against my property

----------


## Zolah

You can get into technicalities over the rights and freedoms of cars and roads as much as you want, but fact is for me, I don't want any drunk people driving behind or infront of me, or coming in the opposite direction, whether I'm driving or on the sidewalk, because their judgement is easily impaired by alcohol and they are not in full control of their actions.

----------


## Kraig

Its not right to drive when you can't fully control yourself but the fact is most people can drink past the legal limit and still fully control themsevles.  I'm sure there are dozens of people at every bar in every city driving home safely every night of the week and they are at more risk of getting a DUI from a bad tail light than anything else.

----------


## IPSecure

> the owner of the road (the govt) has the right to protect her property
> she has the right to refuse service to anyone


The people own the roads, built with our tax dollars...

When did it become 'We The People' vs 'Them The Government'?

----------


## Danke

> on the government's roads?  a driver's license is a privilege that the state grants you
> 
> 
> 
> not according to my state
> 
> 
> 
> not in and of itself.  but being drunk and driving on their streets, yes
> ...


So the state can just take over anything it likes and eliminate rights in your world, great.

BTW, you have no clue what you are talking about . Think about it. If they can restrict you freedom of travel, do your other rights have any meaning?

----------


## votefreedomfirst

I support laws against reckless driving, that is all. It applies the same to drunks as it does to people talking on their cell phones as it does to anyone else.

----------


## muzzled dogg

> So the state can just take over anything it likes and eliminate rights in your world, great.
> 
> BTW, you have no clue what you are talking about . Think about it. If they can restrict you freedom of travel, do your other rights have any meaning?


the state didn't just take it over.  it took it over, a long ass time ago.  if you're saying the state shouldn't own the streets, and then it tries to tell you, as a private owner of a street, that you cannot allow paying customers to drive drunk THEN i have a problem.   i don't think you're trying to make this point tho

----------


## Danke

> the state didn't just take it over.  it took it over, a long ass time ago.  if you're saying the state shouldn't own the streets, and then it tries to tell you, as a private owner of a street, that you cannot allow paying customers to drive drunk THEN i have a problem.   i don't think you're trying to make this point tho


You aren't even addressing any points I brought up.  Ignorance is bliss I guess.

----------


## muzzled dogg

i guess.........

----------


## Kraig

> I support laws against reckless driving, that is all. It applies the same to drunks as it does to people talking on their cell phones as it does to anyone else.


That's pretty much where I stand.  If a cop couldn't tell you were drunk based on how you were driving, the breath test shouldn't matter.

----------


## satchelmcqueen

i dont support drinking and driving at all. none. not even 1 drink. if however you own a race track or a strip of pavement on your personal property ...then have at it.

----------


## canadian4ronpaul

some of you guys take it too far.  there is no "right" to drink and drive.  Drinking and driving endangers others (this has been proven) and therefore infringes on the rights of others to drive safely (i.e. exist).

----------


## Conza88

> some of you guys take it too far.  there is no "right" to drink and drive.  Drinking and driving endangers others (this has been proven) and therefore infringes on the rights of others to drive safely (i.e. exist).


Ohhh nanny statist... government needs to run our lives... Jail people on assumptions... ohhhh you're MAYBE a danger.

Seriously; I'd argue a professional racing driver, when drunk - would be better than an old sober asian lady _(yes, sterotype)_ behind the wheel.

Hey! Let's make laws that you're too old to drive! You're a danger, you're 75... You're too old to be behind the wheel. I mean, your fit & healthy like Ron Paul - you look 55... but no, you're too old sorry. 

*Legalize Drunk Driving by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.*

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> That's pretty much where I stand.  If a cop couldn't tell you were drunk based on how you were driving, the breath test shouldn't matter.



I agree with that... or with some type of impairment test instead of a breath test.  If you can drive as good as the average person, I don't particularly care what substances you're ingesting.

If you're a terrible driver because you're too old to drive, too stupid to drive, or just not good at it, I don't appreciate sharing that risk with you either.  To me, the "why" you suck at driving isn't more important than the fact you suck at driving.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> I haven't seen anyone say they support a person's right to drink and drive, but it sounds like something the libertarians would support.  Drinking and driving itself does no harm and I'm willing to bet most people who drink and drive don't have accidents.  I'm not saying I would support this, but I'm curious if others think the government should intervene in this case.


Yup. Drinking & driving is cool with me. Remember, Tasty, we drive on a road system CREATED and MAINTAINED by government. Besides, the fear of getting in an accident might spark interest in alternative transportation methods, that's how things should work. One thing affects another thing, naturally, which i why the invisible hand of the free market always works better in the long run than the iron fist of the government.

----------


## dirknb@hotmail.com

> Seriously; I'd argue a professional racing driver, when drunk - would be better than an old sober asian lady _(yes, sterotype)_ behind the wheel.


Very true.

----------


## Danke

http://www.barefootsworld.net/sui_ju...to_travel.html

THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
By Jack McLamb, Ret. Phoenix Officer

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a "privilege" that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal.

Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." - Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles (1958) 357 US 116, 125.

"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." - Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others.

Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means that the encroachment by means of licensing and roadblocks is unlawful.

The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws.

The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue.

In Hurtado v. California (1884) 110 US 516, the U.S. Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people."

And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point-- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people?

Other cases are even more straight forward:

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the Rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." - Supremacy clause.

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?

If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people.

These are (1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or (2) by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations.

There are basically two groups of people in this category:

(1) Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state.

Here is what the courts have said about this:

"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.

There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the Right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.

(2) The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.)

We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.

This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and Rights.

We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect  laws that are not laws at all.

An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supercedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling -- discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional [protected] right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.

And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic Right.

----------


## Sandra

If any one of you drinks and drives, then kills one of my loved oned on the road, then I have the right to shoot you in court.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> If any one of you drinks and drives, then kills one of my loved oned on the road, then I have the right to shoot you in court.


shoot me in court? ok. why bother going to court then

----------


## bojo68

Glad to see so e FACT creeping into the discussion.

  For all you NO DRUNK DRIVING PERIOD types, statistically, 1 in 7 accidents has a drunk driver involved. So, to be safe, you should ONLY DRIVE DRUNK, your chances are much better then.
  I've known race drivers that claimed they could drive a better race after 1-2 beers than without. I've known truck drivers that could pull a full load up curvy mountain roads with an underpowered cummins and a 10 speed trans, WHILE EATING CHICKEN. No problem for some people, some can't even talk on the phone and drive.
  I just despise all this it's the drunks fault, it's the phone's fault, that's hogwash, it's the IDIOT'S fault. If somebody doesn't have the development to do those things, they shouldn't, but that's no excuse to encumber those who can.
  I've personally been accused of being a bad driver because I slid a 5500# eldorado into a parking place in front of a coffee shop. To some, that was horrible, to me, it was jealousy, they knew they coulldn't do it.. It was EXACTLY where it was supposed to be.

  I wish some of the people that are making arguments like "the government owns the road" would research history a bit, and give some factual backing for their pronouncements of "privilege" etc. Far as the private road goes, here if it's accessible by the public, the laws apply, private or not. Most states are similar.
That argument is out the window.

----------


## TastyWheat

An extreme correlated scenario: If a person has the right to drink and drive (as it is doing no harm in effect) does a person have the right to stand along side traffic and point a gun at passing cars?  Does a person have the right to walk into a bank with a bomb strapped to his/her chest and nicely ask for a million dollars?

----------


## Sandra

> shoot me in court? ok. why bother going to court then


Why would you need court?

----------


## phixion

I have had closer brushes with death due to lack of attention driving sober than the numerous times I have being drunk behind the wheel.

It only takes a second of bad judgement sober or drunk to cause an accident.

Driving while rediculously tired is far worse than driving a little drunk, but you can't test or fine people for that.

There are limits.

Drive _too_ drunk.
Drive _too_ tired.
Drive _too_ carelessly.

It isn't black and white.

Pete

----------


## Cinderella

how is drinking and driving not causing harm if the person gets into an accident with a SOBER driver?!

i work with a nurse (mind u i was working at a drug and alcohol detox) and this nurse who has been with Adcare for 10 yrs was driving home one night from work and was hit head on by a drunk driver and guess what....HE WAS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN!!!  now poor marianne has a broken femur sharrered ribs....a broken back and pelvis and broken coller bone.....


drinking and driving = putting everyones lives in danger when ur on the road!!!!!


dont drink and drive!!  ive know wayyy too many people who have either died or been disabled due to a drinking and driving accident....i dont need statistics to tell me that

----------


## dsentell

I don't have much respect for the government anymore and personally could care less about what it says regarding drinking and driving, or anything else for that matter.

But I do have personal values and morals:

I have no problem with a person drinking himself  into oblivion if that is what he wants.

I also don't have a problem with a person drinking, getting behind the wheel and killing himself in an accident, if that was his choice.

However, I do have a problem with a person drinking, getting behind the wheel and putting other people's lives in danger.  What if it was a child the drunk driver killed?  What if it was a grandmother?  What if it was his own child or his own grandmother?

I just had this conversation with my step-son two days ago while visiting him in jail where he is serving time after pleading guilty to the charge of DUI - persistent offender. . . . .

----------


## hypnagogue

This is moronic. I can't believe someone would suggest that a person has the RIGHT to operate heavy machinery, while intoxicated, amongst the general public. It's demented.

----------


## CountryboyRonPaul

The question here seems to me to be.

Do you support Pre-Emptive crime prevention?

If infringing on the rights of others is the only situation that can be called criminal, then the act of driving drunk does not directly apply.

However, if you support arresting people that only exhibit pre-requisite behavior that may lead to an infringement on someone's rights, but have not yet infringed on the rights of others, then the DWI laws are just.

----------


## mrsat_98

> http://www.barefootsworld.net/sui_ju...to_travel.html
> 
> THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL
> DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
> HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
> HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
> By Jack McLamb, Ret. Phoenix Officer


Found this article years ago, fought it and won several times. As far as DWI and the right to drink and drive. I had chance to look into the issue in Louisiana. One of the first DWI cases to go to the LSC on the constitutionality of DWI laws dealt with ones right to travel as well as the property rights of the individual who was drinking and driving. In the twenties the issue was getting a great deal of attention as a result of many constitutients writing the legislators. The members of the legislature got together and it was determined that it was the drunk individual property, the automobile, and the drunk had the right to use it. Then oddly enough the supremes alluding vaguely to something happening between the twenties and the present day , 1941 or so. I am of the conclusion that something that happened had to do with Trading with the enemy act ( google "emergency war powers") and the ever speading federal power described in " Jurisdiction over federral Areas within the states". 

Currently it appears that DWI equates with enemy activiety which results in the Police turning military on you. Of course this is my Own Humble Opinion subject to delusional thought processes.

----------


## Kade

> the owner of the road (the govt) has the right to protect her property
> she has the right to refuse service to anyone


The owner of the road is the people. That you separate the government and the people who own the government is odd, and telling.

----------


## Kade

> This is moronic. I can't believe someone would suggest that a person has the RIGHT to operate heavy machinery, while intoxicated, amongst the general public. It's demented.


Is it in you?

----------


## familydog

Don't blame drunk drivers for killing people. Blame the idiots who get in their way.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

I am against the idea that the roads are "theirs", they are ours, the peoples.

Which part do you own? The part that is under your car. As Long as my car doesn’t occupy someone else’s piece of the road the government should have no say in how I operate my vehicle. 

I am against drunk driving laws as I am against any law that is written to prevent a possible crime.

When you enter your vehicle drunk, you are making a choice to risk your life and the possible damage of someone else’s property.  Why should the government have the power to take away that choice? Liberty is the freedom to make bad choices!

If you are drunk and you crash damaging someone’s property, then cite the drunkenness as the cause. Don’t arrest people, impound their property, take away their right to travel, and lock them in jail because they MAY possibly hurt someone. That is just wrong.

----------


## CountryboyRonPaul

> I am against the idea that the roads are "theirs", they are ours, the peoples.
> 
> Which part do you own? The part that is under your car. As Long as my car doesnt occupy someone elses piece of the road the government should have no say in how I operate my vehicle. 
> 
> I am against drunk driving laws as I am against any law that is written to prevent a possible crime.
> 
> When you enter your vehicle drunk, you are making a choice to risk your life and the possible damage of someone elses property.  Why should the government have the power to take away that choice? Liberty is the freedom to make bad choices!
> 
> If you are drunk and you crash damaging someones property, then cite the drunkenness as the cause. Dont arrest people, impound their property, take away their right to travel, and lock them in jail because they MAY possibly hurt someone. That is just wrong.


And if an innocent person IS killed in said crash, Manslaughter charges are then justified.

Trying to Pre-Empt a crime is just as sinister as our policy of pre-emptive warfare.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> And if an innocent person IS killed in said crash, Manslaughter charges are then justified.
> 
> Trying to Pre-Empt a crime is just as sinister as our policy of pre-emptive warfare.


I agree 100%.

----------


## Danke

> Don't blame drunk drivers for killing people. Blame the idiots who get in their way.


Exactly.  Guns don't kill peoples, bullets do! 

Anybody sober on the roads after the bars close should be arrested for stupidity!

----------


## dannno

> *Legalize Drunk Driving by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.*


This is a great article, I think some of you missed it..

----------


## benny215

if we're going to start judging another person's ability to drive we need to take old people off the street and require an IQ test because there are a lot of people that are stone sober and drive worse than I would while "intoxicated" with a .08 BAC

----------


## The_Orlonater

Libertarians support this? I think not. This is a state's issue, drunk driving is disgusting and it can cause harm. In my state, there's a lot of drunk driving accidents, people don't have control over themselves. Why can't we just all carry a sharp axe and swing it everywhere on the street when we're blasted., it's our rights! There's a difference between libertarianism, and state and local governments outlawing dangerous acts.

This thread is a fail.

----------


## ARealConservative

it's an interesting question.

Without a victim from a wreck, essentially it amounts to a breach of contract without the ability to prove damages were suffered.  

Now without looking at the emotional side of this, when do contractual violations equal jail time?  And how does a contractual violation matter when no damages were  incurred from the breech of contract?

Just another of many issues that make libertarianism unworkable.  Conservatism is the key.

----------


## votefreedomfirst

edit nm wrong thread

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Why would you need court?


Maybe to see you.

----------


## hypnagogue

Put a poll on this $#@!. I wanna see how many posters here actually think recklessly endangering the lives of other people shouldn't be a criminal act.

----------


## TastyWheat

Another extreme example: If someone points a gun at your head and threatens to kill you is he/she doing harm?  Mentally maybe, but not physically.  Then what if you manage to get the gun away and knock the person unconscious.  Was it self-defense or assault?

If you said self-defense do I then have the right to pull a drunk out of his/her car and beat the crap out of him/her out of self-defense (I kind of like this idea)?

----------


## Uriel999

First off, honestly answer this, not necessarily on the forum but to yourself; "how many times have I driven after having drinks." Remember .08 is about 2 or 3 drinks and is the legal limit. If you honestly think about it you'll probably have to say a lot. Those two glasses of wine with dinner at the restaurant, or those 5 beers at the sports bar. Chances are, none of you ever have DDs and just drive yourself home. 

Second, since the legal limit is .08 why can't I drink in my car until I can blow .08! Oh and in Florida (don't know about the rest of the country) say me and me friends were chilling outside drinking beers and I decided we want to to listen to music. If I just get in the car with a drink (not moving it or even turning it on) to turn on the radio and a cop drives by, guess who just got open container and god knows what else sort of trouble. In Virginia if you just are holding your car keys and drunk they can DUI you according to one of my cousin's who lives there.

----------


## Danke

> Another extreme example: If someone points a gun at your head and threatens to kill you is he/she doing harm?  Mentally maybe, but not physically.  Then what if you manage to get the gun away and knock the person unconscious.  Was it self-defense or assault?
> 
> If you said self-defense do I then have the right to pull a drunk out of his/her car and beat the crap out of him/her out of self-defense (I kind of like this idea)?


And if someone points their car at you and threatens to run you over (drunk or sober)...

How about I walk (or drive) by you with a gun in my possession, should I be arrested for a crime?

----------


## TastyWheat

K. I'll finally put out my position.  Though in violation of the idea of liberty and freedom of choice I think some laws should be in place to punish acts that endanger others.  If there were not pre-emptive laws like this in place then every person who ever tries to kill another person will likely succeed.  Try this scenario:



> Me: Oh, my God!  Please, help me!  This guy's gonna shoot me!
> 
> Police Officer: What do you want me to do about it?  It's not a crime to try... oh, you're dead.  Okay NOW he's broken the law.


Libertarian philosophy can't work 100% of the time.  Attempted crimes and acts of endangerment should be punished.  However, it may be a fair compromise if attempted crimes require a likely victim to press charges.  In the case of reckless drivers (who may also be drunk) I suppose the police officer can press charges since he's in just as much danger as any other motorist.

----------


## Danke

> K. I'll finally put out my position.  Though in violation of the idea of liberty and freedom of choice I think some laws should be in place to punish acts that endanger others.  If there were not pre-emptive laws like this in place then every person who ever tries to kill another person will likely succeed.  Try this scenario:
> 
> Libertarian philosophy can't work 100% of the time.  Attempted crimes and acts of endangerment should be punished.  However, it may be a fair compromise if attempted crimes require a likely victim to press charges.  In the case of reckless drivers (who may also be drunk) I suppose the police officer can press charges since he's in just as much danger as any other motorist.


Man do you missed the point.  The Police can't protect you anyway.  By the time you lift the phone, you're dead.


Learn to protect yourself.  That includes defensive driving.

----------


## TastyWheat

If that is your position then you think I should be allowed to blow out a drunk driver's tires or pull them out of the car and give them a good thrashing to protect myself and others?

Furthermore, you're suggesting that if a police officer (maybe undercover) is present while a crime is about to occur (say a robbery) he shouldn't do anything until the individual officially commits the crime?

----------


## Kludge

> If that is your position then you think I should be allowed to blow out a drunk driver's tires or pull them out of the car and give them a good thrashing to protect myself and others?


Don't worry, the gov't will be forcing in-car breathalyzers to solve that moral problem soon enough.

----------


## TastyWheat

Well, the point of this discussion is to sort out these problems so when (God willing) some liberty-minded individuals actually get elected we know what needs to be changed.

----------


## Kludge

> Well, the point of this discussion is to sort out these problems so when (God willing) some liberty-minded individuals actually get elected we know what needs to be changed.


Steps to creating a safe-yet-free society:

1. Ban mind-altering substances to protect propety.

2. Euthanize retards and those with a predisposition to commit aggression.

3. Socialize research to find the genes which may lead to aggressive behavior so an abortion can be committed instead of an inhumane murder post-birth. After all, we're free.

----------


## slacker921

... oi..  the wankettes and McCainiacs are out in full force tonight driving around here all drunk and silly.  They're harmless though.

----------


## Kludge

> ... oi..  the wankettes and McCainiacs are out in full force tonight driving around here all drunk and silly.  They're harmless though.


I'm afraid you're not aware of the serious ideological differences between libertarians and conservatives.

----------


## TastyWheat

If you're really on the side of, punish crimes and not actions leading up to crimes, then I will go into a bank with guns drawn and kindly ask for a million dollars in a bag.  Is it robbery?  I didn't threaten anyone, it's not my fault that brandishing a firearm threatens people.  I didn't forcibly take the money either, I kindly asked and they handed it over.

----------


## Kludge

> If you're really on the side of, punish crimes and not actions leading up to crimes, then I will go into a bank with guns drawn and kindly ask for a million dollars in a bag.  Is it robbery?  I didn't threaten anyone, it's not my fault that brandishing a firearm threatens people.  I didn't forcibly take the money either, I kindly asked and they handed it over.


That simply would not happen. They could simply say no and then you'd coerce them, or else the clerk is remarkably stupid/apathetic.

----------


## TastyWheat

> That simply would not happen. They could simply say no and then you'd coerce them, or else the clerk is remarkably stupid/apathetic.


Exactly.  I could (legally) point my guns at the teller's head and say, "Pretty please can I have one million dollars?  I'll be very, very upset if you say no."  Same thing.  I'm not forcibly taking anything, I'm just being very persuasive with the use of firearms.

----------


## slacker921

> I'm afraid you're not aware of the serious ideological differences between libertarians and conservatives.


You're assuming people aren't just yanking chains for giggles?  There aren't any sock puppets on here having a good laugh?  Naahhh..

----------


## Danke

> You're assuming people aren't just yanking chains for giggles?  There aren't any sock puppets on here having a good laugh?  Naahhh..


Well then, please point out the sock puppets.  We can further the discussion without them.  Thanks.

----------


## Kludge

> You're assuming people aren't just yanking chains for giggles?  There aren't any sock puppets on here having a good laugh?  Naahhh..


I'm a person. I have a specific opinion, thus, all people must hold that position.

----------


## Kraig

> If you're really on the side of, punish crimes and not actions leading up to crimes, then I will go into a bank with guns drawn and kindly ask for a million dollars in a bag.  Is it robbery?  I didn't threaten anyone, it's not my fault that brandishing a firearm threatens people.  I didn't forcibly take the money either, I kindly asked and they handed it over.


Obvious difference there is that you are expressing a will and intent to steal or kill where as a "drunk" .08 person driving perfectly fine is not expressing the will and intent to kill anybody.  It's the idea of judging actions of the mind or the results of a bio test.  Next question?

----------


## Conza88

> Put a poll on this $#@!. I wanna see how many posters here actually think recklessly endangering the lives of other people shouldn't be a criminal act.


Yea, I want to see how many demented nanny statists we have in our midst.

Put up a poll OP.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Libertarians support this? I think not. This is a state's issue, drunk driving is disgusting and it can cause harm. In my state, there's a lot of drunk driving accidents, people don't have control over themselves. Why can't we just all carry a sharp axe and swing it everywhere on the street when we're blasted., it's our rights!


You can do that where I live, and no one much cares.  I see you're from Chicago, so I guess that explains your position.  What's next on the prohibited list?  Forks?




> Put a poll on this $#@!. I wanna see how many posters here actually think recklessly endangering the lives of other people shouldn't be a criminal act.


Your problem seems to be that you think only intoxicated people endanger lives.  That's very short sighted of you.  Like I said, the fact that you suck at driving is more important than why you suck at driving.  That doesn't mean "Everyone please go drink and drive."  In fact, I think I'd have more restirctions than you since I might not limit them to intoxicated drivers.  If you've caused a few accidents from inattention, I find you more dangerous than any driver with no accidents and no traffic record, regardless of what substances they ingest.




> Though in violation of the idea of liberty and freedom of choice I think some laws should be in place to punish acts that endanger others.


I think that's a reasonable position, but things need to be kept in perspective.  It's kinda stupid that a dummy can run a stoplight, killing an intoxicated driver, and it will probably be called a "drunk driving accident" or certainly an "accident involving alcohol" where the intoxicated driver is given liability.  That's stupid.

----------


## Doktor_Jeep

Oh boy, another one of these.

Ok here is how it went, for those of you who were too young.

Back in the day, there was a big push against drunk driving. It was not a big problem to figure out: people were getting smashed, $#@! faced, three sheets to the wind, and then trying to drive their cars.

Nobody in their right mind could conclude this was the right thing to do.

And thus, there was a big movement to stop drunk driving.


And........... you won't believe this.......


the people responded.


Yes. It was simple and obvious: If you lose your keys in the gas tank filler, if you are trying to steer with the radio knobs, or confusing the door handle with the shifter, then you should not drive. 

Ok so what is the big deal?


First, the lobby that was all about drunk driving did not go away. MADD was, I think, MAD that they were successful. When you have people being paid to run these organizations, they don't want to go back into the real world.

Second, thanks to the occasional drunk who would kill someone - there will always be someone screwing up in this big world - a bigger deal than necessary was made of these incidents. This was because each time "the drunk driving problem" was hyped, there was hue and cry for - yes you guessed it - more police state. 

And so the "drunk driving checkpoint" was born. Just like the war on drugs, the real goal to get you accustomed to random harrassment and violations of your 4th Amendment. 

Who knew back then they had even bigger violations planned, all for your safety. Like the lastest FISA laws. All for your safety. A generation raised on being treated like scum for the general public safety make for great sheep.

Now of course the public still responded.... yes people are not as bad as you think and heck, they want to make everything a felony these days to keep the prison factorys full.

And so, under Clinton, they came up with the .08 BAC.


You see, people actually looked at these charts and figured out how much they could drink, when to stop, etc. Trouble is, they are not perfect because metabolism is effected by other factors too.  But I remember those height-weight-consumption charts being shown to me as far back when I was 11!


The .08 BAC was all about money. All about police state, and ripping you off.

How often do you hear of someone getting a DWI these days? Back in the early 80s, that was all you would hear DWI DWI DWI but you had to be certifiably drunk to get that.

But now all you hear about is DUI. 

DUI was invented to nail people who foolishly admit they "had a couple" but are not drunk. Every time I talked to someone who got hit with a DUI, they ended up paying between 10 and 20 thousand on legal costs and fines once they let the facts out.

Wow, what a haul, just by making non-drunks into drunks with a stroke of the pen. Thanks Clinton. 

For each and every one. That's a lot of money. 

But no, I guess we are going to fail once more to realize who and what the real enemy is, and have some stupid argument were people are going to get accused of "wanting drunks to run over little kids and nuns".

Try to point out what the DUI scam is really all about and those are the labels you get.

I am seeing some stupid crap on these forums lately. Are we getting an influx of disenchanted nanny-staters who were supporting Obama? Perhaps they should show proof of shock therapy before being allowed to register.

----------


## Hiki

*Sigh*

This is just one more of those retarded "libertarian" things. As I said in the stoplight-thread, Libertarianism is a great thing but some libertarians advocate some stupid $#@!.

----------


## Kludge

> *Sigh*
> 
> This is just one more of those retarded "libertarian" things. As I said in the stoplight-thread, Libertarianism is a great thing but some libertarians advocate some stupid $#@!.


Excellent argument!

----------


## familydog

> Second, thanks to the occasional drunk who would kill someone - there will always be someone screwing up in this big world - a bigger deal than necessary was made of these incidents. This was because each time "the drunk driving problem" was hyped, there was hue and cry for - yes you guessed it - more police state.


I'm pretty sure it is more than the occasional drunk that has killed someone.

----------


## hypnagogue

> *Sigh*
> 
> This is just one more of those retarded "libertarian" things. As I said in the stoplight-thread, Libertarianism is a great thing but some libertarians advocate some stupid $#@!.
> 			
> 		
> 
> Excellent argument!


 It may not be a great persuasive piece, but it's true. There are fanatics or extremists, whatever you want to call them, of every stripe. They all have one thing in common; they can't tell when their philosophy of choice doesn't apply. Some people, it seems, find a principle that they like, and they see examples of how it works great, and so they feel so enlightened they just want to share this knowledge with everyone everywhere. They just don't know when to stop.

----------


## Kludge

> It may not be a great persuasive piece, but it's true. There are fanatics or extremists, whatever you want to call them, of every stripe. They all have one thing in common; they can't tell when their philosophy of choice doesn't apply. Some people, it seems, find a principle that they like, and they see examples of how it works great, and so they feel so enlightened they just want to share this knowledge with everyone everywhere. They just don't know when to stop.


 You cannot pick and choose when to use your philosophy is correct like the many Protestants in our great nation.

You simply cannot base laws on assumptions, you can't! When do you draw the line of probability where the action is banned?

Fireworks, guns, drugs, alcohol, fatty foods. All risky behavior that can harm yourself and in many cases, others.

If alcohol is the substance which you believe is causing them to make irrational behavior and causing them to commit aggression, you should be calling for prohibition. Prohibition of all substances which may cause irrational decisions.

----------


## hypnagogue

No one is talking about harming oneself. This entirety of this issue is whether or not a person should be allowed to place another, against their will, in serious mortal danger for which no one could possibly recompense. You ask where to draw the line. I will say this, no single philosophy or principle devised by man will ever be so conclusive and exact as to be able to answer all questions. The sound judgment of men and women will always be required. 

And your attempt to turn my opposition to driving while intoxicated into support for outright prohibition of intoxicating substances is nothing more that rhetorical dishonesty. You see, I am not an extremist of any stripe and I do know that simply because a principle holds in one arena does not mean that it would hold in another or to any degree.

----------


## Kludge

> No one is talking about harming oneself. This entirety of this issue is whether or not a person should be allowed to place another, against their will, in serious mortal danger for which no one could possibly recompense. You ask where to draw the line. I will say this, no single philosophy or principle devised by man will ever be so conclusive and exact as to be able to answer all questions. The sound judgment of men and women will always be required. 
> 
> And your attempt to turn my opposition to driving while intoxicated into support for outright prohibition of intoxicating substances is nothing more that rhetorical dishonesty. You see, I am not an extremist of any stripe and I do know that simply because a principle holds in one arena does not mean that it would hold in another or to any degree.


If alcohol is the substance which you believe is causing them to make irrational behavior and causing them to commit aggression, you should be calling for prohibition. Prohibition of all substances which may cause irrational decisions is necessary.

If alcohol is causing the risk of mortal danger (would a sober man drink and drive?), it must be prohibited.

----------


## hypnagogue

Oh wait.. or we could just prohibit people from operating a vehicle on public roads while under intoxicating substances. 

If that's all the argument you've got (you've put it forth twice now) I'm not going to bother myself to respond.

----------


## Kludge

> Oh wait.. or we could just prohibit people from operating a vehicle on public roads while under intoxicating substances. 
> 
> If that's all the argument you've got (you've put it forth twice now) I'm not going to bother myself to respond.


You didn't respond to it the first time. You can't base laws on assumptions to prevent crime, only prevent crime by punishing violations of law.

----------


## hypnagogue

> ... no single philosophy or principle devised by man will ever be so conclusive and exact as to be able to answer all questions. The sound judgment of men and women will always be required.


 Sound jugment is how you know where to draw the line. I don't expect you to understand, but apparently you couldn't even tell where I was addressing the issue.

----------


## Kludge

> Sound jugment is how you know where to draw the line. I don't expect you to understand, but apparently you couldn't even tell where I was addressing the issue.

----------


## slothman

I think DUI laws should exist.
An analogy would be a person swinging a gun, of course loaded, around and shooting.
He doesn't mean to hurt someone but it seems likely.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

The right to drink & drive is a universal right. It's the bedrock tenet of individual liberty.

----------


## Conza88

*A Primer on Logic - For Drunk Driving Prohibitionists
by Mark R. Crovelli*

----------


## Hiki

> You cannot pick and choose when to use your philosophy is correct like the many Protestants in our great nation.


Yes you can. There are no universal philosophies which apply under every circumstance. 




> You simply cannot base laws on assumptions, you can't! When do you draw the line of probability where the action is banned?


Yes you can. 




> Fireworks, guns, drugs, alcohol, fatty foods. All risky behavior that can harm yourself and in many cases, others.


So is running, bicycling, listening to music while walking on a busy street. You can't achieve total safety, but that doesn't mean that you can't do anything to improve it a bit. Would you let a guy get behind the wheel who has just started an LDS-trip and let him drive through the city as fast as he wants (I assume that you dont support speed limits either)?

----------


## Zippyjuan

Driving a car is not a right.  It is a privalege.  You are responsible not only for yourself but also everybody else out there.  If you are endangering the lives or property of others, you should have the privalege taken away. Operating a 2000lb metal object while drunk is not behaving responsibly. If you crash, you will probably not be the only one hurt or killed or receiving property damage.  If drunks only killed or injured themselves, others would care less.  That is why you can drink at home but not on the road.

----------


## Maverick

> Driving a car is not a right.  It is a privalege.  You are responsible not only for yourself but also everybody else out there.  If you are endangering the lives or property of others, you should have the privalege taken away. Operating a 2000lb metal object while *[texting, changing a CD, getting a blowjob, being senile, etc.]* is not behaving responsibly. If you crash, you will probably not be the only one hurt or killed or receiving property damage.  If *[chronic texters, music-listeners, BJ-getters, and senile old people]* only killed or injured themselves, others would care less.  That is why you can *[text, listen to music, get a BJ, or be senile]* at home but not on the road.


(Bold text added by me.)

Seriously, if we're going to talk about supposed irresponsible behavior, why single out one? Let's ban them all. Every car should come equipped with cameras that constantly monitor you, and if you do _anything_ other than look straight ahead at all times and keep your hands at "10 and 2" then the car should immediately shut its engine off.

----------


## Zippyjuan

I can live with that. Do you believe that people should be able to whatever they want to in a car including being drunk and killing others?  Freedoms are not absolute. Mad Max is not what I would like to see on the highways.

----------


## TastyWheat

I added a poll to the thread.  I guess the wording is good.  I didn't want to use the word "right" because exercising our rights can still get us in trouble.

----------


## Mckarnin

But if drunks only make up say 5% of the driving populace than that means that 14% of accidents are caused by 5% of those who are driving meaning that statistically they are almost 3 times more likely to get in an accident than a non drinking driver. To work this out logically we would need to know what percentage of total drivers are drunk on average to see if accounting for 1 in 7 accidents is good or bad. To be honest I doubt that anything close to 5% of driving is performed by drunk people. 

K 




> Glad to see so e FACT creeping into the discussion.
> 
>   For all you NO DRUNK DRIVING PERIOD types, statistically, 1 in 7 accidents has a drunk driver involved. So, to be safe, you should ONLY DRIVE DRUNK, your chances are much better then.
>   I've known race drivers that claimed they could drive a better race after 1-2 beers than without. I've known truck drivers that could pull a full load up curvy mountain roads with an underpowered cummins and a 10 speed trans, WHILE EATING CHICKEN. No problem for some people, some can't even talk on the phone and drive.
>   I just despise all this it's the drunks fault, it's the phone's fault, that's hogwash, it's the IDIOT'S fault. If somebody doesn't have the development to do those things, they shouldn't, but that's no excuse to encumber those who can.
>   I've personally been accused of being a bad driver because I slid a 5500# eldorado into a parking place in front of a coffee shop. To some, that was horrible, to me, it was jealousy, they knew they coulldn't do it.. It was EXACTLY where it was supposed to be.
> 
>   I wish some of the people that are making arguments like "the government owns the road" would research history a bit, and give some factual backing for their pronouncements of "privilege" etc. Far as the private road goes, here if it's accessible by the public, the laws apply, private or not. Most states are similar.
> That argument is out the window.

----------


## sidster

I just have to say:  	1,225 views, 91 posts over 10 pages and only 2 votes! :P

This poll officially sucks!

----------


## TastyWheat

> I just have to say:  	1,225 views, 91 posts over 10 pages and only 2 votes! :P
> 
> This poll officially sucks!


It didn't have a poll to begin with.  I was trying to get some actual discussion going and not just everybody's 2 cents.

----------


## Conza88

> It didn't have a poll to begin with.  I was trying to get some actual discussion going and not just everybody's 2 cents.


_"Should Drinking and Driving Be Decriminalized?"_

I don't believe we should be able to drink water. Or cola 

Naah I won't be an ass. Thanks for putting it up

----------


## Kludge

> _"Should Drinking and Driving Be Decriminalized?"_
> 
> I don't believe we should be able to drink water. Or cola 
> 
> Naah I won't be an ass. Thanks for putting it up


Now see.... If we all spoke Spanglish, we wouldn't have these types of problems.

----------


## New York For Paul

I think Virginia use to have a law where you could an open container and your friend can drink while you drive.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> I can live with that. Do you believe that people should be able to whatever they want to in a car including being drunk and killing others?  Freedoms are not absolute. Mad Max is not what I would like to see on the highways.


Dude, Mad Max was a great driver

----------


## Zolah

I'm curious if the division between yes and no is also a division (somewhat) between Libertarian and libertarian? I think it would very extreme (and more in line of the Libertarian) to decriminalise drunk driving. I'm not judging anyone, but I'm interested if I'm right if this is big L little L division where perhaps people have to agree to disagree.


/edit @ kludge, fair enough thanks

----------


## Kludge

> I'm curious if the division between yes and no is also a division (somewhat) between Libertarian and libertarian? I think it would very extreme (and more in line of the Libertarian) to decriminalise drunk driving. I'm not judging anyone, but I'm interested if I'm right if this is big L little L division where perhaps people have to agree to disagree.


I think it's more of a division between conservatives and libertarians. Ron Paul was able to bridge conservatives with libertarians, creating this movement. Most people probably haven't even examined the proper label for themselves. libertarian is truly an umbrella-term.

----------


## IRO-bot

I am with Lew on this one....




> But there’s a more fundamental point. What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.



It's the acts that should be the crime.

----------


## berrybunches

If you drive crappy than you should get a ticket. We don't need so many laws. In Montana it is legal to drink and drive/no open container laws. I've heard the kids all have mini bars on their dashes lol
(I don't know about being piss drunk but you can have a beer in your hand without being pulled over)

Point is bad driving is bad driving. We don't need so many laws. If someone is swerving being drunk doesn't make the fact that they were swerving worse. They should get the same punishment of someone who was swerving when sober or swerving/eating, swerving/talking.

You may say this prevents accidents...well, its not the polices job to prevent crime. Their job is to investigate crimes after they happen...this is what a free country is about. Plus adding a drunk charge usually happens after the fact anyway. I don't think anyone here will argue the unconstitutionality of check points either.

I view this like I view hate crimes. A murder is a murder no matter what the intent. Bad driving is bad driving no matter the reason.

----------


## Conza88

> If you drive crappy than you should get a ticket. 
> _*snip*_
> Point is bad driving is bad driving. We don't need so many laws. If someone is swerving being drunk doesn't make the fact that they were swerving worse. They should get the same punishment of someone who was swerving when sober or swerving/eating, swerving/talking.


*
WHY the hell should you get punished for swerving, talking, eating?*

----------


## Danke

> *
> WHY the hell should you get punished for swerving, talking, eating?*


Think about the Children!

swerving = dizzy, nauseated children.

talking (cellphone) = neglecting children.

eating = selfish, not feeding, leading to starving children.

----------


## Kludge

> Think about the Children!
> 
> swerving = dizzy, nauseated children.
> 
> talking (cellphone) = neglecting children.
> 
> eating = selfish, not feeding, leading to starving children.


Oh... You are the *WORST* kind of person

----------


## electronicmaji

The roads are goverment owned; they must provide safety to all patrons and persue those who endanger the safety of others; you could replace safety with freedom and roads with country and you have the basic tentaments of all goverment.

----------


## Conza88

> Think about the Children!
> 
> swerving = dizzy, nauseated children.
> 
> talking (cellphone) = neglecting children.
> 
> eating = selfish, not feeding, leading to starving children.


None of that should actually be against the law... so...

----------


## Kludge

> The roads are goverment owned; they must provide safety to all patrons and persue those who endanger the safety of others; you could replace safety with freedom and roads with country and you have the basic tentaments of all goverment.


Hooray, you identified the problem AND gave the proper solution.

----------


## SimpleName

> You can get into technicalities over the rights and freedoms of cars and roads as much as you want, but fact is for me, I don't want any drunk people driving behind or infront of me, or coming in the opposite direction, whether I'm driving or on the sidewalk, because their judgement is easily impaired by alcohol and they are not in full control of their actions.


Excellent. Technicalities hurt realism. We could certainly allow people to drive drunk, but then we must also allow mentally retarded people to drive as well because that is their right. BLAH! It is interesting to think all Jeffersonian about everything (like the   'do we have the right to subject future generations to our system of government' ideas), but we must be realistic about it. Giving people who can't even stand up straight the privilege to drive on the road will basically lead to state-enabled vehicular manslaughter. It would be the same as allowing a mentally retarded person to drive. In fact, it would be worse, because those that are mentally handicapped have little control over their debilitation, but those who drink DO! Hopefully this dangerous far libertarian thought doesn't become more popular.

----------


## CountryboyRonPaul

> Excellent. Technicalities hurt realism. We could certainly allow people to drive drunk, but then we must also allow mentally retarded people to drive as well because that is their right. BLAH! It is interesting to think all Jeffersonian about everything (like the   'do we have the right to subject future generations to our system of government' ideas), but we must be realistic about it. Giving people who can't even stand up straight the privilege to drive on the road will basically lead to state-enabled vehicular manslaughter. It would be the same as allowing a mentally retarded person to drive. In fact, it would be worse, because those that are mentally handicapped have little control over their debilitation, but those who drink DO! Hopefully this dangerous far libertarian thought doesn't become more popular.


What about the guy that had 2 glasses of wine with his wife at the restaurant putting him just above the legal limit but still well in control of his actions?

I don't mind having a DWI law.

I DO mind being labeled a felon for driving home after watching the game at a buddies house.

Can we at least agree that the standard 3 strikes law screws over relatively innocent people.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Hooray, you identified the problem AND gave the proper solution.


No. The more proper solution would be to defund/cancel road maintenance projects and to let the free market claim the roads.

----------


## Kludge

> No. The more proper solution would be to defund/cancel road maintenance projects and to let the free market claim the roads.


I claim all the roads. You lose.

(As for EMI, I skimmed the first time. Upon further inspection, I have no idea wtf he's saying, as usual. Maybe I'm just devolved  )

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> I claim all the roads. You lose.
> 
> (As for EMI, I skimmed the first time. Upon further inspection, I have no idea wtf he's saying, as usual. Maybe I'm just devolved  )


heh. but you will need to defend it  hard to all by yourself.

----------


## Kludge

> heh. but you will need to defend it  hard to all by yourself.


Bah.... Libertine.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Bah.... Libertine.


No, anarchist.I think one smooth measure we could take is to create a post-government anti-statism organization. All members take an oath to FIGHT statism. yeaaaaaaaaa

----------


## Kludge

> No, anarchist.I think one smooth measure we could take is to create a post-government anti-statism organization. All members take an oath to FIGHT statism. yeaaaaaaaaa


*Libertine* has come to mean one devoid of any restraints, especially one who ignores or even spurns religious norms, accepted morals, and forms of behaviour sanctioned by the larger society. The philosophy gained new-found adherents in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, particularly in France and Britain. Notable among these were John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, and the Marquis de Sade. "Libertine", like many words, is an evolving one, defined today as "a dissolute person; usually a person who is morally unrestrained". Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand wrote that Joseph Bonaparte "sought only life's pleasures and easy access to libertinism," while on the throne of Naples.[1] In modern times, libertinism has been associated with sado-masochism, nihilism and free love.


Libertinism = Anarchism.

----------


## Kade

> Libertinism = Anarchism.



The *Kludge* packer strikes again! Way to be a forum superstar chief. Nice signature.

----------


## Kludge

> The *Kludge* packer strikes again! Way to be a forum superstar chief. Nice signature.


I was going to call them (you) dull tools, but it sounded mean and slightly collectivist. Failure is justifiable as they (you) failed to sign - hence, a failure.

----------


## Kade

> I was going to call them (you) dull tools, but it sounded mean and slightly collectivist. Failure is justifiable as they (you) failed to sign - hence, a failure.


Packer, copying me is always collectivist, as is agreeing with me, and disagreeing with me. Ignoring me is also collectivist. If you are collectivist, you are also a communist, and we all know that communism is totalitarianism, so if you even hint at a piece of socialism, you are a liberty-hating fascist. 

But don't quote me on that... we both might become fascists.

----------


## Conza88

> But don't quote me on that... we both might become fascists.


*But fascism is collectivist....

Bahahhah.*

----------


## Danke

> Packer, copying me is always collectivist, as is agreeing with me, and disagreeing with me. Ignoring me is also collectivist. If you are collectivist, you are also a communist, and we all know that communism is totalitarianism, so if you even hint at a piece of socialism, you are a liberty-hating fascist. 
> 
> But don't quote me on that... we both might become fascists.


I see you're finally making sense!

----------


## Matt Collins

*"Lew  Rockwell dares to take on that scared cow of the nanny state:  drunk  driving laws and tyrannical "DUI checkpoints". Mike talked about  this on  the show and added his own, distinctly Churchian take."*


_Listen to the audio and read the transcript here:_
http://www.mikechurch.com/index.php/...-drunk-driving

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> the owner of the road (the govt) has the right to protect her property
> she has the right to refuse service to anyone


Exactly.  A sure fire way to label us as kooky is to adopt a pro-drunk driving stance.  Political suicide.

----------


## dannno

> Exactly.  A sure fire way to label us as kooky is to adopt a pro-drunk driving stance.  Political suicide.


Most libertarians are against drunk driving laws, look at the polls and all of the writings. There are plenty of people who can drive at .08-.12 perfectly safely, probably more safely than some sober drivers. 

Why would you put somebody in prison who is a safer driver than somebody who is sober? The cops need to look for reckless drivers.

----------


## MelissaWV

Zombie threads frighten me.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The roads are goverment owned; they must provide safety to all patrons and persue those who endanger the safety of others; you could replace safety with freedom and roads with country and you have the basic tentaments of all goverment.


Actually, the roads are owned by "the public".  (that is why taxes are levied to pay for them)  (The government owns nothing except that which it has stolen or expropriated)  They are government managed, however, which is why they are so dangerous, shoddy, and generally crappy.

----------


## pcosmar

> * The Right to Drink and Drive?*


Poorly titled thread.
How about ,
"The Right to Travel Unhindered"
"The Right to be Unmolested"

"No Harm= NO Crime"
or perhaps ,
"Is Pre-crime Acceptable?"

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Poorly titled thread.
> How about ,
> "The Right to Travel Unhindered"
> "The Right to be Unmolested"
> 
> "No Harm= NO Crime"
> or perhaps ,
> "Is Pre-crime Acceptable?"


Excellent point!  +rep

----------


## DFF

The current laws governing drinking and driving are totalitarian X1000 (especially in TexASS where I live). The state has gone way, way to far in it's attempts to prevent the unpreventable. The laws need to be reformed to treat alcoholism as an illness...and *an intoxicated driver should only be charged with a criminal act if they've injured another person, or destroyed someone else's property*. Putting everyone in prison (the current "solution") and punishing them before they've actually committed a crime (think Minority Report) is not the answer.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

I would support decriminalization because I recognize that people can probably get themselves home safely with a BAC of .08 or whatever the current level is, and defensive driving probably has the best chance of protecting somebody against an alcoholic or some other maniac who decides to drive with a BAC of .15 or something.  This is a personally touchy issue for me though because a relative of mine happens to be an alcoholic and if she were to injure or kill someone while drinking and driving, I would be very upset.

Oh well, principles above personal experiences I guess.  (I think I posted a similar reply on another thread dealing with this, but I can't remember.)

----------


## Kylie

When I was young, I had two very good friends who were killed by a drunk driver. He was going the wrong way on the interstate and hit them head on in their chevette. Killed one instantly and the other not very long after. When their parents got to the hospital, the drunk guy was the only one still alive. He didn't stay that way after the Mom told him what he had done. He had a heart attack and died right there in the hospital. 

With that being said, I'm still against the state's right to stop you at a checkpoint in order to smell your breath. If you are not doing anything that is harming another person or property, then you've committed no crime and should be on your way. 

Now, if you do cause damage to persons or property and it is found that you were: drunk, on drugs, on the phone, etc. these should be used in court against you. And you should have your ass nailed to the wall. If you cannot conduct yourself in a responsible manner and cause harm to someone, THEN you pay. Not before. Not because of some made up pre-crime. 

Personal responsibility is a bastard because it makes you responsible for your actions. Not the alcohol, or drugs, or phone, or car. YOU.

----------


## osan

> the owner of the road (the govt) has the right to protect her property
> she has the right to refuse service to anyone



Government has the right?  Please grace us with your proof.

----------


## osan

> I haven't seen anyone say they support a person's right to drink and drive, but it sounds like something the libertarians would support.  Drinking and driving itself does no harm and I'm willing to bet most people who drink and drive don't have accidents.  I'm not saying I would support this, but I'm curious if others think the government should intervene in this case.


I support it.  I also support one being held strictly responsible for the consequences for bringing another to harm regardless whether they are drunk.  I might also support detention of one who is drunk such that they present a clear and present danger were they to be allowed access to a vehicle.  I'm not sure about that part.  I'd have to think about it and hear other opinions.  I am not quite yet sure where principle lies here.

----------


## Kylie

> I might also support detention of one who is drunk such that they present a clear and present danger were they to be allowed access to a vehicle.  I'm not sure about that part.  I'd have to think about it and hear other opinions.  I am not quite yet sure where principle lies here.




Bartenders do this now. I just watched it happen last night. Guy walked in, obviously already $#@!faced, and she told him no more. But she did offer him a soda or coffee. She was being responsible, even though he wasn't. 

We all still have the right to say no.

----------


## Theocrat

> I haven't seen anyone say they support a person's right to drink and drive, but it sounds like something the libertarians would support.  Drinking and driving itself does no harm and I'm willing to bet most people who drink and drive don't have accidents.  I'm not saying I would support this, but I'm curious if others think the government should intervene in this case.


Lew Rockwell had an interesting article about legalizing drunk driving yesterday, so maybe you should check it out to get some answers to your original question.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

Drinking and Driving absolutely should be illegal. 

One can argue that we should absolutely only prosecute based on an damaging event exclusively, however, we don't, and never will apply that standard, as if we did, it would lead to all kinds of interesting scenarios. LIKE.

1. Hold a cement block on a overpass, and throw it up and down barely catching it before it falls on the car below. This would not be illegal, if we had to wait for actual death, or the physical results of pure stupid behavior. 

2. Swinging a knife around erratically in public, while the idiot doing it swears he's good at this.

3. Pointing a loaded gun at random passers by. The guy swears it's not a threat, because he doesn't intend to pull the trigger. As if it's his right to weigh his steady finger versus someone getting shot for nothing.



Why are those things illegal? They are illegal because a rational person would feel reasonably threatened by someone doing such things. Thus the same reason a drunk person driving down the road in a weapon is threatening everyone around them whether they are aware or not. 

I've driven behind drunks swerving all over the road before, and no one drunk drives well, they are just to stupid drunk to realize they are doing the equivalent of pointing a loaded gun at strangers. 

http://www.edgarsnyder.com/drunk-dri...tatistics.html
32% of fatal car wrecks are caused by drunk drivers, which is far out of proportion to the percentage the population whom are alcoholics, the highest percentage I could find of alcoholics (including "abusive drinkers") was 10 percent of the population. If you have 8th grade math skills you can compute, that even if half of those fatal wrecks were from casual drinkers the amount of wrecks caused by alcoholics is disproportionate to the non-drinking population. Thus a drunk driver can reasonably be deemed a threat beyond reasonable expectations compared to the non-drunk population.

----------


## pcosmar

> Drinking and Driving absolutely should be illegal.


So you support Pre-crime.
And you base that support on provably false statistics on an ambulance chaser's web site.

http://www.totaldui.com/news/article...tatistics.aspx



> But wait - what about those statistics?
> 
> The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that nearly 18,000 highway deaths were classified in 2007 by federal statisticians as "alcohol-related." This could be misleading because not every traffic fatality that is alcohol-related was caused by alcohol. An accident is classified as alcohol-related when any one person, including passengers, pedestrians or cyclists, was thought - not necessarily proven - to have any amount of alcohol in their system at the time of the fatal accident. This method of classification can greatly skew statistics and cause them to be exaggerated and misleading.
> 
> In fact, if all of the alcohol-related accidents involving people who were driving under the blood alcohol content legal limit, drunken pedestrians, impaired cyclists and other people who had actually not been drinking at all were subtracted from the number of alcohol-related fatalities that are reported, only about 12 percent of innocent victims remain. This means that out of the 18,000 alcohol-related highway deaths, 2,160 were actually victims of DUI drivers. While that is still 2,160 too many, it is a fraction of the number of people that Americans are led to believe have been killed by drunken drivers.


http://www.duiblog.com/2004/10/23/a-...ty-statistics/



> In 1999, the federal General Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed these figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — and issued a report stating that they "raised methodological concerns calling their conclusions into question ". The statistics, the GAO report said, "fall short of providing conclusive evidence that .08% BAC laws were, by themselves, responsible for reductions in alcohol related fatalities." In other words, the statistics weren’t even valid when applied to alcohol-related fatalities, much less alcohol-caused deaths.
> 
> So what are the real numbers? The Los Angeles Times also decided to investigate the validity of these statistics. In 2002, NHTSA’s figures claimed 18,000 deaths on the nation’s highways attributable to drunk driving. The Times found that only about 5,000 of these involved a drunk driver causing the death of a sober driver, passenger or pedestrian. (Research by other groups, such as "Responsibility in DUI Laws, Inc.", indicate the figure is actually under 3,000.) 5,000. A fraction of the number being used by the government and political pressure groups like MADD.
> 
> Despite this irritating little truth, MADD, law enforcement and federal and state governments continue to use the same false statistics to justify the passage of unfair and unconstitutional DUI laws.


But go ahead, Base your view on politically motivated Propaganda and ignore the facts.

*In reality sober drivers kill more drunks (and others) than do drunk drivers.*

----------


## Kylie

But if 1/3 of all the wrecks in our country are caused by drunk driving, and we've outlawed DD, then why haven't we outlawed the other causes of 2/3's of accidents? 

I mean, cmon, there is obviously something amiss in the driving world when you have villified a portion of the populace while leaving the better part of the wreckers alone.

----------


## pcosmar

> But if 1/3 of all the wrecks in our country are caused by drunk driving, and we've outlawed DD, then why haven't we outlawed the other causes of 2/3's of accidents? 
> 
> I mean, cmon, there is obviously something amiss in the driving world when you have villified a portion of the populace while leaving the better part of the wreckers alone.


No actually less that that, Of the 18,000 that were "Alcohol Related" only 5000 (or less) were caused by a drunk driver. That is less than  1/3 of the 1/3 that they use as a statistic.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Drinking and Driving absolutely should be illegal. 
> 
> One can argue that we should absolutely only prosecute based on an damaging event exclusively, however, we don't, and never will apply that standard, as if we did, it would lead to all kinds of interesting scenarios. LIKE.
> 
> 1. Hold a cement block on a overpass, and throw it up and down barely catching it before it falls on the car below. This would not be illegal, if we had to wait for actual death, or the physical results of pure stupid behavior. 
> 
> 2. Swinging a knife around erratically in public, while the idiot doing it swears he's good at this.
> 
> 3. Pointing a loaded gun at random passers by. The guy swears it's not a threat, because he doesn't intend to pull the trigger. As if it's his right to weigh his steady finger versus someone getting shot for nothing.
> ...


I chose this part of your post, because the rest of your post is ridiculous.  We should not be developing laws and manufacturing checkpoints based purely on statistics.  If you believe this to be so, then I'm sure you are lobbying to have checkpoints based upon race, gender, height, weight, ethnicity, or any number of other things that sometimes seem (based on statistical data) to be related to certain crimes.  A whole lot of rapists are men!  I think we should have a checkpoint where men donate some sperm and it's run against a database!  See how that works?  Of course, if you're already gunning for "drunk drivers," then you're going to blame every crash that happens where someone has a blood alcohol level above a certain number on the alcohol.  I am sure that no one who has had a drink or two ever crashed for other reasons....

As for the above, let's take them one at a time.

1.  Throwing a cement block up and down and "barely catching it" should be against the law?  Good God, why?!  Who decides what "barely" is, or what even constitutes a "block"?  Why are you saying that the other alternative is a death?  If that person causes demonstrable harm, they should be held accountable.  This does not have to begin when they "barely" don't catch the cement.  Consider someone driving along and seeing a bunch of people by the side of the road engaged in that behavior, or someone glancing up and seeing what they are sure is going to be a cement block crashing down at them (though it gets caught), and that driver getting into a wreck.  If they can convince a jury that it's those pesky cement-tossing kids who caused the wreck, really, then they're going to get money in an ideal world, and the kids will bear some of the responsibility (or the parents in their stead) for the compensation owed the drivers of the wrecked vehicles.

You are still grasping at the idea that an action has an inevitable effect.  It doesn't.  

2.  Swinging a knife around in public goes along the same lines.  I notice you used "in public," though.  I'm curious:  did the person suddenly become less dangerous when they're on private property?  Swinging a knife around in an erratic fashion is what someone might consider someone to be doing when they're eating a steak.  Some folks "talk with their hands," even when those hands are holding utensils.  Quick, cart them off to jail?  What's that?  Discretion?  No.  Discretion isn't allowed.  If you are over the legal limit, you are drunk, you are to be yanked off the road, you are a hazard.  There is no discretion.  Likewise, if you are "swinging a knife around" you are going to jail, right?  All those chefs are totally going to be pissed when they are carted off.

3.  Ah this last one's always interesting.  It seems terrible because we're playing the omniscient Devil's Advocate.  In reality, how would you know whether or not the gun was loaded?  You'd tackle the guy and find out?  When you did so, if the gun was loaded, would it not be more likely to go off?  Whose fault would that become?  If the guy is creating a disturbance (again) that someone can show caused other damage, and get judge/jury/arbitrator to agree with them, then the guy is going to be held liable, whether or not it went off or was even loaded.  This is an example that is often extended to merely having a firearm on your person, which is why people freak out when they see a holstered weapon.

* * *

Lastly, those examples are pretty ridiculous.  They don't happen that often.  What we do see are abuses of those same scenarios, though; people getting shot for "brandishing a weapon" which was not loaded, not there, or never even brandished, etc..  See the story about the guy who was sitting on a stoop whittling for a good example of "waving a knife around" and what it leads to.  Read it very carefully, then read your point of view.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

It's not pre-crime. It's threatening people with the inability to properly control a multiple thousand pound object by choice. Threatening another's life voluntarily is a crime. Sure people get on the road, and know there is a chance an "Accident" may happen, but driving a vehicle in a state that greatly increases the odds, is voluntarily increasing the odds you will kill, injure or damage anothers property. Regardless, if the Federal Government,State, or local government handled the driving laws, Drunk driving will always be illegal. So, this is a lot about nothing in reality land, unless your position is that no body of government should license anybody, and 3 year olds are cool to drive about town. 

As far as your two links, they don't source any of their material. I'm trying to find the los angeles times article the second referenced without luck, thus far. But if I find it, and the method is sound, I might reconsider.

Anyway, pre-crime would be me predicting before you even drank a beer that you would then drive, or even seeing you drunk and predict you are going to drive. Not getting into a vehicle in a state  proven to slow reaction times, and thus increase the odds you will hit a person or property.

----------


## pcosmar

> It's not pre-crime. It's threatening people with the inability to properly control a multiple thousand pound object by choice. Threatening another's life voluntarily is a crime. Sure people get on the road, and know there is a chance an "Accident" may happen, but driving a vehicle in a state that greatly increases the odds, is voluntarily increasing the odds you will kill, injure or damage anothers property. Regardless, if the Federal Government,State, or local government handled the driving laws, Drunk driving will always be illegal. So, this is a lot about nothing in reality land, unless your position is that no body of government should license anybody, and 3 year olds are cool to drive about town. 
> 
> As far as your two links, they don't source any of their material. I'm trying to find the los angeles times article the second referenced without luck, thus far. But if I find it, and the method is sound, I might reconsider.
> 
> Anyway, pre-crime would be me predicting before you even drank a beer that you would then drive, or even seeing you drunk and predict you are going to drive. Not getting into a vehicle in a state  proven to slow reaction times, and thus increase the odds you will hit a person or property.


 Licensing is another question. No there should be no licensing.
As far as the statistics go, There have been several threads on this subject. (every couple months)  and they have been posted several times.
I really don't care to look them up again, but they are available and easily found with a little research.

As far a"threatening" anyone with an auto,,,, that is just $#@!ing stupid and a really $#@!ing stupid argument.

By far, more fatalities are caused by SOBER people. Are they threatening also?

----------


## agitator

> I think we should have a checkpoint where men donate some sperm and it's run against a database!  See how that works?


I could get behind that, depending upon who is helping out with the collections.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

Nevermind..... not worth it, I'm not getting into this with a person that can't even communicate like an adult.

----------


## pcosmar

> Nevermind..... not worth it, I'm not getting into this with a person that can't even communicate like an adult.


And I have trouble repeating my self over and over and over again to dumb $#@!ing statists that can't even bother to research the question, but continue to present false propaganda to argue their point.

Here, is one that took seconds to find.
http://alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html

----------


## DAFTEK

..

----------


## MelissaWV

> It's not pre-crime. It's threatening people with the inability to properly control a multiple thousand pound object by choice. Threatening another's life voluntarily is a crime. Sure people get on the road, and know there is a chance an "Accident" may happen, but driving a vehicle in a state that greatly increases the odds, is voluntarily increasing the odds you will kill, injure or damage anothers property. Regardless, if the Federal Government,State, or local government handled the driving laws, Drunk driving will always be illegal. So, this is a lot about nothing in reality land, unless your position is that no body of government should license anybody, and 3 year olds are cool to drive about town. 
> 
> As far as your two links, they don't source any of their material. I'm trying to find the los angeles times article the second referenced without luck, thus far. But if I find it, and the method is sound, I might reconsider.
> 
> Anyway, pre-crime would be me predicting before you even drank a beer that you would then drive, or even seeing you drunk and predict you are going to drive. Not *getting into a vehicle in a state  proven to slow reaction times*, and thus increase the odds you will hit a person or property.


I am sure you are lobbying for laws to stop people from driving tired, when ill, or when elderly.  Every day, millions of elderly drivers get behind the wheel in a state proven to slow reaction times, critical thinking ability, and sometimes alarmingly affect memory.  

Given that not everyone's reaction time is slowed beyond functional ability by the "legal limit" in many states, and that proof of reduced reaction (swerving, braking short, driving stupidly) is against the law and would get someone pulled over anyhow, what is the justification for these laws again?

If someone over the legal limit is, as you assert, in such a terrible state that they can't drive worth a $#@!, then THAT is what should get them pulled over.  It should also get them pulled over if they're fiddling with their gadgets, falling asleep, making out with their passenger, trying to calm their baby, reading a book, eating while driving, or anything else.  The CAUSE is not the problem.  If you are so sure that being legally drunk makes one a bad driver 100% of the time, then this should be easy:  all those "drunks" will be caught anyhow.

It is pre-crime, by the way, and it's funny you said "getting into a vehicle" because sometimes that's all it takes.  If you are drunk, and get into your car and sit behind the wheel, maybe even for an hour, maybe just with the radio on and the engine running, you can still expect a tap on your window from the police.  The crime in question is damage to person or property.  You do NOT know, just by testing someone's blood, whether or not they are going to cause that damage.  You only know the statistical probability is changed by alcohol in volumes high enough to affect reaction time.  It is changed in those scenarios I have described, too, and myriad more.  Why isn't there such a crazy effort to stop those folks?

The last accident I saw in person was:



Curiously enough, the woman was just driving fast, passing people, driving like $#@! and then her car spun and went across the median.  The pickup, going the right way and going a normal speed, almost cut the car in half.  There was no "almost" about the way the black car's driver was found.

Now, that day there were all kinds of cops along the interstate, stopping people in teams for not moving over when the lights were flashing.  This caused the lanes to stop and start and go at uneven speeds.  This caused a lot of us who were trying to get to work to be late.  I guess this lady decided she wasn't going to be any later than she already was.

Maybe if the cops had been more worried about who was driving poorly, swerving, cutting people off, and generally disobeying just about every traffic law out there... instead of their specific enforcement of one stupid law... she would have been stopped before she caused that idiocy and got herself killed.

No drinking was involved, but do you need to know the cause, or the effect?

----------


## pcosmar

> And I have trouble repeating my self over and over and over again to dumb $#@!ing statists that can't even bother to research the question, but continue to present false propaganda to argue their point.
> 
> Here, is one that took seconds to find.
> http://alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html


Damn. I shouldn't let this get to me, but I have been a victim of this bull$#@!.
It has cost me several thousands of dollars, in years past.

I am 53 yrs old and have been driving since I was 12. I have never wrecked a car. (crashed a motorcycle when sober though)
I have had 2 DUIs. The first one I was not driving, I was going to sleep in my car. Legally parked and with a cold motor (never started it)
The second one was on a motorcycle, I had drank a couple beers, but was no where near drunk.
I have worked as a Bodyman, repairing cars for a living, and have had a lot of repeat customers. Sober ones. People that repeatedly wrecked cars.

I have also known hundreds of people that drive "under the influence" for many years without incident.

These laws are total bull$#@!. and the facts prove that.
$#@! the Propaganda.

Oh yeah, I haven't had a drink since 2007, when I met Ron Paul on Mackinac Island.
I had several beers that night. (it was celebratory) and drove a bunch of "Fair Tax" folks back to their hotel. The weather turned to $#@! And there were violent thunderstorms, so I gave them a ride.
I then drove the 60+ miles home through a nasty thunderstorm. Without incident. With a buzz on.

This stupid $#@! pisses me off.

----------


## DamianTV

I dont have any problem with legalizing Russian Roulette, as long as its only the players life that is jeopardized.  When it puts everyone else at risk, that is a problem.  Put one bullet in a six shooter, spin it, then pull the trigger at someone else without their concent, I draw that line.  I dont give a $#@! what someone does to themselves, or what age kids start drinking, but drinking and driving is too great a risk, and people are already irresponsible enough.

Lowering the limit, that is just a money grab, taxation by citation, but for someone that is unable to control their vehicle, or themselves well enough to not put me in extreme risk, I'll vote to stay with the idea, not necessarily the law, but the idea that driving drunk infringes on other peoples right to life.

----------


## BlackTerrel

They set the legal limit at such a low level it is laughable.  But surely there is a point at which people should not be on the road.

----------


## Matt Collins

Reason Magazine has an article about abolishing drunk driving laws:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/3...k-driving-laws

----------

