Question for "pro-drunk drivers"

[osan]

Drunk driving is not dangerous in all instances. Only when you are wasted and the government admits this by setting the limit. The problem is that the limit is set arbitrarily. You should be punished for reckless driving and not for w/e you breathalyzer test says.

The law is genetically flawed precisely because of the arbitrary nature. Driving drunk is not a crime. If I get good and gassed up and drive home, hurting nobody on the way, I have committed no crime. This is not to say that what I have done is particularly smart, but that it is not criminal.

Public intoxication statutes were enacted not because of the danger drunks pose to others, but for "moral" reasons. Therefore, being publicly drunken is also not a crime in the same way or for the same reasons that drunk driving is - yet there is plenty of potential for harming others. So, if I have a drink or two in my living room and then go out for a walk, can police "pull me over" to check whether I have been drinking? At what level of intoxication am I "guilty"? If I carry a gun, have a drink or two, trip over my own two feet, fall, and the gun discharges and injures someone, and I guilty of a crime? What if alcohol consumption had nothing to do with the outcome? What if I had not been drinking? Cause and effect cannot be reasonably established, yet the presumption of criminal guilt is made as the presence of alcohol is deemed as presumptive evidence. Is this not the apex of hubris and criminality on the part of legislators and judges?

Such laws are utter nonsense and constitute crimes against the natural rights of all people. They should be abolished yesterday. Redefining "crime" is a very dangerous game and it has destroyed countless lives. One of my lawyers once put it very well when he told me that "felons" used to be bad people. Very bad, in fact. Felons, when caught, tried, and convicted, very much earned their prison time. He said that this was no longer the case (1993). Being a "felon" has become largely meaningless because there are so many acts for which one may now be so labeled where no crime is committed. Arbitrary redrawing the lines between legitimate and criminal action is itself criminal activity. It is, in fact, the highest crime any human being can commit. Far worse than murder, robbery, rape, or child molestation. Nothing even remotely compares with it in severity because by so altering the metes and bounds of legitimate action, the natural rights of all people are violated. That we have tolerated this from our legislators, judges, and the jackals enforcing such trespass is a profound shame upon all of us, as it constitutes complicity in the crimes.

IMO, if Johnny Average understood the degree to which we must rightly roll back so-called "government" and "law", he would retreat into the familiarity of the tyranny that now cradles and devours him and no amount of TNT would ever dislodge him for the terror that the reality of true freedom would strike into him.

 

[osan]

What would the life of those poor police officers be like if they lose one way of nagging people?

Hell. Unmitigated hell.

 

[t0rnado]

Originally Posted by WaltM View Post
in other words : until then, whoever leaves their house is fair game to be killed, who asked them to step on anybody's property but their own?

More people are killed by lightening strikes than by drunk drivers every year, but you aren't lobbying the federal government or arguing on this board for laws banning people from leaving their homes during thunder storms, are you? Drunk driving is just another issue like "dangers" of marijuana that receives undue attention because of busy bodies and people who think the use of force on strangers, who have a certain liquid in their blood stream, will somehow avenge a relative or friend who was killed in a car accident.

You have a problem differentiating between a person driving with alcohol in their blood stream and a person causing an accident with alcohol in their blood stream. You aren't hurting anyone by simply driving a car with alcohol in your blood stream. As soon as you hit another person's car, you've impeded upon their rights whether you're drunk or not.

 

[WaltM]

"Drunk driving" is not a problem. It's a subcategory of a larger problem, which is "Driving dangerously." If you're driving dangerously, whoever's job it is to ensure safety on the roadway would be justified in pulling you over and trying to arrive at the reason why it's happening. You might be in medical distress. You might be intoxicated. You might be having car trouble. You might have been trying to eat a cheeseburger, talk on your cellphone, change the radio station, and write down a grocery list at the same time.

If the roads are private, then those private roads will very likely have some manner of safety/security patrol. If not, people would probably not want to use those roads, and would search for alternate routes. I certainly prefer travel on well-lit, well-maintained highways and interstates, and try to avoid the really nasty stretches that seem designed to get people killed.

In the current world, we do have police, and I would still maintain that they should be able to pull you over for driving like shit. They can issue you their citation, based on whatever they determine is the reason for that driving like shit, and you can either pay it or contest it. In contesting it, the burden of proof is on them to show that you were doing what they say you were. With dash cams and the like, it should be really obvious if you were swerving or driving too fast or too slow or any other deviation from traffic that was dangerous for the conditions. Officers who have a certain number of cases thrown out would likely be reprimanded or have their duties changed in this ideal version of the current world, since they waste the courts' time and are obviously not that good at their job.

The ultimate problem is the bad driving. Punish that, and tack on citations at the scenes of accidents, and publish statistics from independent sources which point out how many accidents happen for what reasons, but don't sit there and waste so much time and energy tracking down everyone who's over a "limit," while ignoring the people we see on the road everyday who might not be intoxicated, but are obviously driving really dangerously.

you are right, I'm trying to understand, when people say they're anti-DD laws, they're for legalizing drunk driving as long as it's not dangerous, or for legalizing dangerous driving altogether.

 

[WaltM]

At the very least, sobriety should be judged by a series of physical coordination tests that relate to driving, not the content of your blood.

It is.

Or if it wasn't 100% of the time, it's based on the content which statistically have shown to be coorelative to your coordination ability (and lack of it)

Being an experienced drinker, I can conduct myself just fine at .12% BAC. Most wouldn't even know I had been drinking. On the other hand, some small 18 year old girl with little experience would be tripping all over herself at .12% BAC.

how do you know you're .12%? Do you test yourself each time? Is it possible sometimes you're less capable of driving at less than .12%, and vice versa?

 

[WaltM]

More people are killed by lightening strikes than by drunk drivers every year

Really?

Even if that were true.

How is lightening strikes measured, all people in the country vs people struck? Or just the people living in high risk area vs people struck?

How is that a comparison to, all the people in the country, vs all the people out at night, which happen to be killed by a drunk driver?

I'd like to see the percentage of fatal car accidents which are alcohol related.

 

[payme_rick]

I guess I'm in the unique situation in that I can relate with both sides here.. About five years after my only sister was killed by a drunk driver I was convicted of dwi here in texas..

Outside of the two years of probation, all of my fines + my insurance tripling was running me over $500 p.month. At the time I was fine with it: my mistake, I made the bed and I'm gunna have to sleep in it, but I wasn't very liberty-minded then, but I am now..

$500 a month plus some jobs no longer being available to you all because you drove 2 miles with a BAC level of .08 or higher and it's your first offense?? Add on top of that the crazy laws around dwi.. You can get it goin to your neighbor's house on a fuckin lawnmower..

Should I get the same punishment for carrying a deer rifle in my trunk because I am then more likely to injure/kill an innocent person because of the gun's presence?

Anyhoo, I hate sitting on the fence with issue but my sister's death keeps me there, but I for sure don't hate everyone who drives drunk or think people are "pro drunk drivers" because they don't agree with harsh punishment for a victimless crime..

The dwi related deaths in Texas has decreased but it is still WAY to high of a number.. What should we do to get it down further, OP? 15 year minimum prison sentence for first time offense? Thatd lower the dwi numbers a lot imo.. Hell you could almost eleminate it by making the punishment manditory death-penalty? We should do that huh, OP? Or are you pro drunk-driving/ers?

 

[WaltM]

Reckless driving is already illegal.

But it shouldn't be, right? Because you've not hurt somebody until you've hurt somebody.

Murder is already illegal.

According to some here, that's not stopped just because its illegal.

Prosecute drunk drivers for the crimes they commit.

Which would be reckless driving.

Prosecuting someone for being drunk because they might kill someone is the same as prosecuting someone for carrying a gun because they might kill someone.

Correct, the same as prosecuting a person for SAYING he's going to kill somebody.

Murder is murder. Don't get onto the road if you feel that you just might end up murdering someone. Don't carry a handgun if you might accidentally pull the trigger and shoot someone.

Don't drive drunk if you feel you might be harassed and arrested. Killing is killing, even if it was an accident.

 

[payme_rick]

And the lightening to dwi related death number is absurd, there's been more dwi related deaths in my area than lightening related deaths in the us this year and I'd bet my life on that

 

[tremendoustie]

you are right, I'm trying to understand, when people say they're anti-DD laws, they're for legalizing drunk driving as long as it's not dangerous, or for legalizing dangerous driving altogether.

Ultimately, I'm for private roads, but in the mean time, I'm for stopping reckless people.

Basically, if this makes sense to you, I consider each victim of taxation, or of eminent domain, to be an owner of the roads -- they have a right to use them. So, you're allowed to do what you like on it, but you're not allowed to harm others or their property.

Think of it as some unowned, undiscovered land (as in the old west, for example). Same rules apply. Reckless people should be stopped, but the government doesn't have the right to set arbitrary rules for its use, as an actual owner would.

 

[brandon]

WaltM is my least favorite poster. Not because of his opinions, but because of his extremely poor tactics and methods of debating.

I'm sure he is Josh_LA or whoever

 

[low preference guy]

WaltM is my least favorite poster. Not because of his opinions, but because of his extremely poor tactics and methods of debating.

I'm sure he is Josh_LA or whoever

Can you discern his opinions? To me he sounds like a crazy person who doesn't really have strong opinions.

 

[WaltM]

I guess I'm in the unique situation in that I can relate with both sides here.. About five years after my only sister was killed by a drunk driver I was convicted of dwi here in texas..

Your sister would be proud of you.

Remember, she wasn't killed by a drunk driver, she was killed by a RECKLESS DRIVER.

Outside of the two years of probation, all of my fines + my insurance tripling was running me over $500 p.month. At the time I was fine with it: my mistake, I made the bed and I'm gunna have to sleep in it, but I wasn't very liberty-minded then, but I am now..

I'm sure people who are in prison would either be fine with it, or be liberty minded. There's just no such thing as a person who's liberty minded and still responsible for accepting punishments.

$500 a month plus some jobs no longer being available to you all because you drove 2 miles with a BAC level of .08 or higher and it's your first offense?? Add on top of that the crazy laws around dwi.. You can get it goin to your neighbor's house on a fuckin lawnmower..

Except a lawnmower doesn't drive as fast, much noisier and nobody takes it on the road, so police don't worry about it.

How much did you end up paying ? $20k? $50K?
How much would you be willing to pay to bring your sister back?

Should I get the same punishment for carrying a deer rifle in my trunk because I am then more likely to injure/kill an innocent person because of the gun's presence?

Maybe.

I don't know how the comparison works with a deer rifle in your trunk, but how much do you think the person who killed your sister should be fined and punished? What if she didn't die, how much in medical bills and quality of life would it cost you?

Anyhoo, I hate sitting on the fence with issue but my sister's death keeps me there, but I for sure don't hate everyone who drives drunk or think people are "pro drunk drivers" because they don't agree with harsh punishment for a victimless crime..

It's a victimless crime that INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD of killing people.

How harsh should punishment be if a person drives blind folded? (We got answers here varying from zero to "punish it just for reckless")

But hey, why don't you forget about your sister's death, after all she's less than 1 in 1000 people it's happened to, according to somebody here it's less than the odds of the allegedly unpreventable, neglected in lobbying, strike of lightening.


IF YOU'RE OFFENDED, then I think I made my point. Nobody cares about statistics when it happens to them. If you believe in individualism, statistics is the BEST way to insult you, by saying you're only one of millions. I'm starting to get sick arguing for protection of life, even though I'm pro-abortion and have nobody I know killed by car accidents.

The dwi related deaths in Texas has decreased but it is still WAY to high of a number.. What should we do to get it down further, OP?

If I had a way, would you do it? Or only if it doesn't interfere with your belief about liberty?

15 year minimum prison sentence for first time offense? Thatd lower the dwi numbers a lot imo.. Hell you could almost eleminate it by making the punishment manditory death-penalty? We should do that huh, OP? Or are you pro drunk-driving/ers?

I'm not sure 15 years would DETER it very much, but it'd discourage it for thinking people, and prevent repeat offense.

Let me ask you, if you KNEW that DUI/DWI would cost you $500 a month, would you not have paid $500 to hire a designated driver that night? If you knew who was going to drive drunk that day to kill your sister, would you not be happy to amputate the person beforehand?

 

[WaltM]

Ultimately, I'm for private roads, but in the mean time, I'm for stopping reckless people.

Basically, if this makes sense to you, I consider each victim of taxation, or of eminent domain, to be an owner of the roads -- they have a right to use them. So, you're allowed to do what you like on it, but you're not allowed to harm others or their property.

Think of it as some unowned, undiscovered land (as in the old west, for example). Same rules apply. Reckless people should be stopped, but the government doesn't have the right to set arbitrary rules for its use, as an actual owner would.

you're for stopping reckless people, but not with the government's "arbitrary" rules.

so if I can get the government to adopt fair rules, you'll be for it?

 

[WaltM]

WaltM is my least favorite poster. Not because of his opinions, but because of his extremely poor tactics and methods of debating.

I'm sure he is Josh_LA or whoever

asking you if you pulled the number out of your ass is poor tactics?

 

[acptulsa]

you are right, I'm trying to understand, when people say they're anti-DD laws, they're for legalizing drunk driving as long as it's not dangerous, or for legalizing dangerous driving altogether.

And the Allison brothers, namely Donnie and Bobby? The old joke went (and there's plenty of reason to believe it a true story) is that someone was driving Donnie around the latter's home town, and Donnie told him to run a red light. 'Don't worry about it,' he'd say,' the cops here all know me.' The next light was red, and the same thing happened. The third light, as well.

Then he came to a green light. 'Stop! Stop!' yelled Donnie. The guy stopped, then asked what was the matter. 'Bobby might be coming the other way.'

Societies enact laws to suit their circumstances. The federal government gets involved when these laws are so varied and incomprehensible that they actually interfere with interstate commerce. This is good, and called for by the Constitution. That said, once the federal government gets its fingers in the pie it never, ever backs off. It invariably sticks more fingers in the pie.

So, drunk driving laws are older than federal interference in every city's traffic laws, and obviously several communities felt and feel the need for them. So, why is the BAC standard .08% nationwide? Because the federal government says, do it or we'll take the money we took off your citizens and give it to the highway department of another state. And people like you say, how can you say anything in favor of drunk driving? Just as people like you, years ago, couldn't understand how anyone could argue in favor of going over 55 mph.

But there was a lot that could realistically be said against the 'double nickle' limit. People out west were so bored behind the wheel that they were falling asleep and driving off the road. Wholesale. Northeastern damnyankees refused to believe it. And another wedge was driven dividing this nation.

Is .08% the magical number? Should the fed have shoved it down our throats? Is the .08% as applicable to the wide boulevards of Tulsa as to the narrow alleys of Manhattan? How about the abandoned farm-to-market roads of West Texas?

The long and the short of it is that drunk driving laws are written to presume--and in fact state outright--that a citizen behind the wheel gives up all his Constitutional rights. There's nothing about driving a car that would lead one to believe that doing so would give the cops the right to grab you and seize your breath or even your life's blood. Yet that's just what these laws say.

Regardless of anything else, these laws are some of the worst, and have been some of the worst over the years, for eroding our Constitutional freedoms. Now, you can dismiss the severity of the problem if you choose, but many of us are feeling the pinch about our liberties these days, and will attack the problem from any angle. And, yes, this includes championing unpopular causes like this one. Because no matter what little good is accomplished from this or that specific thing, the incremental loss of my child's freedoms is no longer acceptable. It has gone too far already.

So, yes, mire yourself in the details. Say that the people Brazos County, Texas should be held to the same standard as New Yorkers, and erase all of the rural advantage in livability so everyone might as well move to the city. And whine and wring your hands over the intolerable fact that someone seems to favor drunk driving. And when you have to give blood and be tested before you can walk into a store that sells wine for fear you've a genetic inability to digest it or disposed to alchoholism, don't whine to us.

We tried.

P.S. We already have the largest percentage of our population in prison of any so-called society, Walt. Where does it end? When chewing gum is a felony because too many people have stepped on a spent wad?

 

[YumYum]

Finland has a "zero tolerance" law regarding drinking and driving. If you have any amount of alcohol in your system (even a beer), you lose your driver's license for life. The law seems to be effective, because Finland has the lowest causality rate for people killed by drunk drivers, and the lowest number of DUIs.

 

[payme_rick]

I asked you the question, Walt, if death was the punishment for dwi, and you felt it'd help deter people from driving drunk, would you be all for that, or would you be pro drunk driver?

I'm not talking about the punishment for seriously injuring or killing someone because you dwi'd, I'm talking about the punishment for driving a car at .08 bac or higher and that's it...

 

[acptulsa]

Finland has a "zero tolerance" law regarding drinking and driving. If you have any amount of alcohol in your system (even a beer), you lose your driver's license for life. The law seems to be effective, because Finland has the lowest causality rate for people killed by drunk drivers, and the lowest number of DUIs.

Well, obviously they actually have public transportation. Unlike Brazos County, Tx...

 

[tremendoustie]

you're for stopping reckless people, but not with the government's "arbitrary" rules.

so if I can get the government to adopt fair rules, you'll be for it?

It's not about rules at all. It's about self defense, and defense of innocents. You have a right to stop someone who's in the act of attacking/harming others (for example, if someone is driving an SUV wildly through a playground full of kids -- or swerving all over the road, especially into oncoming traffic). If their behavior doesn't constitute an attack, and isn't clearly putting others in imminent danger, you should leave them alone.

Now, if you owned the property, you'd have the right to make rules.