Question for "pro-drunk drivers"

[low preference guy]

heavenlybunchiesboy did.

Irrelevant. I was arguing that your counterargument to AED's point was stupid.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

heavenlybunchiesboy did.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Monarchs are generally more likely to rule more justly than the ill-informed rabble that govern democracies and republics. Just sayin'.

True that. The Germans actually liked Hitler-he made the roads work through nationalization where the previous democratic State was a mess.

 

[WaltM]

Irrelevant. I was arguing that your counterargument to AED's point was stupid.

nope, it wasn't stupid.

AED DID say that I was arguing for the status quo and majority rule, and I said slavery was hardly an exception.

 

[Perium]

WaltM.

My take would have to be this choice of yours. j) the government should make our roads safer, but by punishing what's done, not preventing what's hasn't.

 

[Kregisen]

This issue seems to be the same as the drug war and even speed limits.

Politicians ban drugs to keep others "safe" and we have speed limits to keep others safe as well.

I've 100% against the drug war and have always questioned whether we should have speed limits or just laws against crazy driving (if you're driving undistracted, it doesnt matter how fast you're going, you won't hit anyone unless someone else messes up, speeding is directly, a victimless crime), but I've never questioned laws against drunk driving before.

On principle anyone should be able to drive a car no matter how intoxicated they may be, and from a pragmatic standpoint, you should ban anything that *can* distract people.

I tend to side much more with principle than pragmatism, but I'm not sure what kind of law you would have instead of .08 for a DUI...

Would you just arrest them if they were driving half off the road and let them be if not, no matter how drunk they are?

 

[MelissaWV]

"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.

 

[Wesker1982]

Always worth another read

Drunk-Driving Laws Are Absurd
http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli25.html

 

[brandon]

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.


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.

 

[fisharmor]

As I stated in the other thread, the drunk driving laws only exist because drunk drivers are generally not prosecuted for the actual crimes they commit.

 

[Elwar]

Reckless driving is already illegal.
Murder is already illegal.

Prosecute drunk drivers for the crimes they commit.

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.

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.

 

[silverhandorder]

Ok, fair enough.

I can't say I disagree, by this definition, a person can say and think he's drunk, but as long as he's passed the breathalyzer and can prove he's in control, he's fine.

Exactly but I would steer away from using breathalyzer to prove that the person is drunk. Maybe use it as additional evidence that there is alcohol in person's blood.

Besides I doubt this is the most pressing issue for the liberty movement, just wanted to make a point earlier.

 

[osan]

Who currently owns the roads?

Government or citizens?

In the case of the USA, please detail the difference between these two.

 

[osan]

could I have possibly left any out? Tell me if I did!

Yes: TROLL

 

[osan]

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?

Your snyde, sarcastic tone is uncalled for. If you have a legitimate question to ask, try asking it politely and in an adult manner. This is bullshit.

 

[osan]

answer: the government should privatize roads and let the owners implement whatever rules they want.

What are the metes and bounds on the setting of rules?

 

[pcosmar]

What If?
Maybe? Speculation ?
Twisted statistics and emotional reactions. THAT is what this whole issue is about.

Fact Sober drivers cause the vast majority of accidents.
Fact Most people arrested for drunk driving have caused no damage, and committed no other harm.

Get over it.


yes, I have had 2 DUI's . The first for sleeping in my parked car. Second due to a lying police officer. (he was fired for false reports)
I have never wrecked a car or had an "accident"..Ever!
I am 53 and have had a license since 16.
I have worked as a bodyman and painter, and have fixed cars for several SOBER repeat customers.

Facts folks.
And I am not Pro Drunk Driving. I am Anti-Intrusive Laws. I am Anti- Pre-Crime.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What If?
Maybe? Speculation ?
Twisted statistics and emotional reactions. THAT is what this whole issue is about.

Fact Sober drivers cause the vast majority of accidents.
Fact Most people arrested for drunk driving have caused no damage, and committed no other harm.

Get over it.


yes, I have had 2 DUI's . The first for sleeping in my parked car. Second due to a lying police officer. (he was fired for false reports)
I have never wrecked a car or had an "accident"..Ever!
I am 53 and have had a license since 16.
I have worked as a bodyman and painter, and have fixed cars for several SOBER repeat customers.

Facts folks.
And I am not Pro Drunk Driving. I am Anti-Intrusive Laws. I am Anti- Pre-Crime.

Hooray for you! Nice post. ~hugs~

 

[tremendoustie]

somehow he's worked out in his mind that the State is a special creature raised in a special incubator incapable and disqualified from acting with human traits. and the State, or the private sector, are day and night just because the name says so.

No, they're all the same.

If some private dude went around extorting money from his neighbors, and using that money to buy land -- or even just stealing the land directly -- I wouldn't say he owns the land either.

To answer your question though, reckless driving should be illegal, because it places others in imminent danger. If a person is able to drive safely while somewhat intoxicated, that's their business.

 

[tremendoustie]

"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.

Well said.