Eliminate Drunk Driving laws

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Which one?

Click here, my friend:

.

 

[PRB]

Eliminating drunk driving laws still won't solve the problem of drunk driving.

Drunk driving isn't a problem.

For this, we need better, more accessible public transportation.

No, we don't. Only a socialist would suggest such as ridiculous waste of taxpayer money

Vast Subways in every major city and European style Trams.

European = socialist

Eventually though, once cars can drive themselves, we won't even need these and drunk driving laws will become totally obsolete.

Drunk driving laws are a violation of freedom, that's all you need to know.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It's election time. Can't chance stretching the noodle of a[n] law and order type.

I've maintained that law and order don't go together a majority of the time in US code. All code about law was implemented a long time ago. Most new laws are strictly order.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

No, we don't. Only a socialist would suggest such as ridiculous waste of taxpayer money



European = socialist



Drunk driving laws are a violation of freedom, that's all you need to know.

If any Daily Paul or new members are reading PRB, then just ignore his threads/posts. He pretends to be libertarian in an effort to show the impracticalities of liberty. He is really a progressive Democrat. This has been demonstrated time and time again. He will, of course, deny it. As he does time and time again.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It's not even about "drunk driving" any more. The language changed from "Don't drive drunk" to "Don't drimk and drive."


Check out these headlines from the American Beverage Institute:

National Transportation Safety Board proposes to lower legal blood alcohol limit from .08 to .05

Recommendation to put in-car breathalyzers in every new vehicle is misguided

https://abionline.org/newsroom/



Also, the famous quote from MADD's founder:

Candy Lightner, MADD's founder, says she disassociated herself from the movement in 1985 because she believed the organization was headed in the wrong direction.
"It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned," said Mrs. Lightner, who founded MADD after her daughter was killed by a drunk driver. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/aug/6/20020806-035702-2222r/

 

[DFF]

MADD will actually show up at prisoner parole hearings demanding they aren't released. That's how psychotically bloodthirsty that organization is.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Eliminating drunk driving laws still won't solve the problem of drunk driving. For this, we need better, more accessible public transportation. Vast Subways in every major city and European style Trams. Eventually though, once cars can drive themselves, we won't even need these and drunk driving laws will become totally obsolete.

Neither will keeping them. That's the whole point. It's similar to the War On (some) Drugs that way.

 

[TheTexan]

You guys are all monsters who want minivans full of small children to be t-boned by Rodney King.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You guys are all monsters who want minivans full of small children to be t-boned by Rodney King.

LULZ Heartless monsters at that!

 

[phill4paul]

Eliminating drunk driving laws still won't solve the problem of drunk driving. For this, we need better, more accessible public transportation. Vast Subways in every major city and European style Trams. Eventually though, once cars can drive themselves, we won't even need these and drunk driving laws will become totally obsolete.

And here is where I say you will be entirely wrong. You will still be required to remain sober.

Even if it is an autonomous vehicle, the alcohol-impaired person is still the driver. After all, actions need to be taken to start the vehicle, enter instructions regarding destination and route, and engage the self-driving function. These actions constitute driving, and if you’re drunk, that’s drink driving.

Moreover, there are serious issues concerning the possible situations where a driver in an autonomous vehicle needs to intervene due to an emergency or system malfunction. Any such intervention constitutes driving, and again, if you’re drunk, that’s drink driving.

http://theconversation.com/self-driving-cars-will-not-help-the-drinking-driver-31747

Your horse might know the way to the barn from the bar. But if you are drunk and in the saddle you will still get a DUI.

 

[TheTexan]

The best advice to avoid drunk driving charges is just to follow the same rules pilots do. If you get absolutely hammered, you need to give it at least 2 hours before driving. Or maybe it's 3. I don't remember the regs.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You guys are all monsters who want minivans full of small children to be t-boned by Rodney King.

He be dead. Unless you mean his ghost.

 

[Danke]

The best advice to avoid drunk driving charges is just to follow the same rules pilots do. If you get absolutely hammered, you need to give it at least 2 hours before driving. Or maybe it's 3. I don't remember the regs.

We are not supposed to drink within 50 feet of aircraft.

 

[euphemia]

MADD will actually show up at prisoner parole hearings demanding they aren't released. That's how psychotically bloodthirsty that organization is.

Except that some of the parole hearings they attend are because their kids were killed by drunk drivers. It's hard to believe self-proclaimed libertarians would deny parents an opinion about whether the person who killed their child should stay in jail or not. If the drunk shot the child, would that be any different?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Except that some of the parole hearings they attend are because their kids were killed by drunk drivers. It's hard to believe self-proclaimed libertarians would deny parents an opinion about whether the person who killed their child should stay in jail or not. If the drunk shot the child, would that be any different?

One reason I don't like this approach is because you inevitably put more value on one life over another. Kids are more valuable than older people because the oldster has lived his life. The poor homeless fuck has no one to speak for him, so running his ass over is a little more palatable to this type of emotion.

 

[euphemia]

One reason I don't like this approach is because you inevitably put more value on one life over another. Kids are more valuable than older people because the oldster has lived his life. The poor homeless fuck has no one to speak for him, so running his ass over is a little more palatable to this type of emotion.

My personal life experience has to do with two teens and a mom (not my mom) being killed by a teen drunk driver. That's why I chose to rebut the statement that MADD showing up at parole hearings is a bad thing. Crime victims are allowed to show up at parole hearings to remind the board why the person is in prison to begin with.

You are the one using vulgar terms to describe a homeless person who has largely been forgotten. All life has dignity. Those who take it should forfeit it.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Those who take it should forfeit it.

And who is going to take that person's life?

The state?

Because they never get it wrong, correct?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

My personal life experience has to do with two teens and a mom (not my mom) being killed by a teen drunk driver. That's why I chose to rebut the statement that MADD showing up at parole hearings is a bad thing. Crime victims are allowed to show up at parole hearings to remind the board why the person is in prison to begin with.

You are the one using vulgar terms to describe a homeless person who has largely been forgotten. All life has dignity. Those who take it should forfeit it.

Not sure if I am debating you because I don't know the whole history of this. I am guessing that courts started doing this as a catharsis to placate the aggrieved. This emotion really has nothing to do with determining a penalty or assess rehab potential. The board certainly has (or should have) the facts in front of them. Aggrieved parties are not there to present facts.

Everybody probably knows somebody who has been killed by a drunk. I do too. People like to play one up on this, but that's another part of the emotion.

By the way, I use an alternate version of devil's advocate with that referral to homeless. Sort of like referring to blacks as coloreds.

 

[Anti Federalist]

We are not supposed to drink within 50 feet of aircraft.

LOL

 

[Anti Federalist]

Look, folks can spin this any way they want, but punitive drunk driving laws that assume harm done with no one actually being harmed, are no different in theory than every single gun control or drug law.

It makes for a visceral response because it has touched many folks, and it has been ingrained into the culture to be the cause of everything bad in the world, from hemorrhoids to spontaneous decapitation.