Should Drunk Driving Be Legal?

[SeanEdwards]

SeanEdwards, how are you harmed by potential danger? What are your damages as a result of potential danger? What bills do you have to pay as a result of it?

My life insurance rates are increased because of the increased potential for harm.

What money did you lose from missing work? Oh thats right. Potential danger is just that, potential. When I get in the car and drive to school every day there is potential danger of me being in an accident. But I'm not going to demand that a person who almost crashed into me the other day be put in a jail cell? For what?

For what? To prevent the reckless unsafe driver from killing some innocent person with their vehicle.

You clowns have taken a reasonable philosophy of individual liberty, and run with it all the way to the land of utter fucktard absurdity. Good luck recruiting political allies and advancing a small government agenda with this ridiculous anarchist ideology.

 

[M House]

...and forced to take responsibility for your own BAC, sounds pretty reasonable to me. Your not really living up to your name here. Though 175 million get murdered by shitty governments according to your sig, plenty get murdered by blatant stupidity. Have all of you pro drinkers even thought about how ridiculous this is, you can already drink and drive.

 

[Danke]

My life insurance rates are increased because of the increased potential for harm.

Then don't buy insurance or buy from an insurance company that won't pay out if you are drunk in an accident.

 

[cordscords]

I am actually not arguing one way or the other, but I understand the reasoning behind the law. While I agree that a person can drink and drive on their own property as much as they would like, when one gets out on the state highways amongst a lot of other vehicles and people.

For those of you opposed to drunk driving laws do you oppose speed limits? Just curious?

Ryanduff, being under the influence of a substance is an aggravating factor in any incident or crime and may be the determining factor in whether or not a person is charged with a crime or not. If someone has an accident with a firearm and are intoxicated they are more likely to be charged with negligence.

Yes I am. There is already a 5-10 MPH leeway that is given to us already. The police doesnt enforce the posted limit. Whats the point of the current system? And as evident by the 41-mill+ speeding tickets that are handed out per year, we don't care about that leeway either. We are going to speed no matter what. Also speeding statistics are also skewed by certain groups:

A report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows the fatality rate on the western autobahn has been virtually identical to the death rates on U.S. Interstates for over ten years. In a letter to NMA President James J. Baxter, Martinez claimed the error was an innocent mistake due to "inconsistencies in data collection" and would be deleted from future releases. Some activists who have been lobbying for an increase in highway speed limits point to the misleading statistics as clear evidence of deliberate misrepresentation by NHTSA.

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/nhtsalie.html

I think that speed limits should become speed suggestions. If you take advantage of the privilege that has been given to you by driving recklessly and causing an accident, then you should face hard consequences.

 

[Danke]

Yes I am. There is already a 5-10 MPH leeway that is given to us already. The police doesnt enforce the posted limit. Whats the point of the current system? And as evident by the 41-mill+ speeding tickets that are handed out per year, we don't care about that leeway either. We are going to speed no matter what. Also speeding statistics are also skewed by certain groups:



http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/nhtsalie.html

I think that speed limits should become speed suggestions. If you take advantage of the privilege that has been given to you by driving recklessly and causing an accident, then you should face hard consequences.

When I was in Germany, if you went above 130kph, insurance would not cover your accident.

In the states, if you are going the speed limit, but traffic is moving faster, you can get a ticket. You are causing a hazard.

Many places don't ticket during rush hour, but speed in the same place on a Saturday, etc., will result in a ticket.

 

[M House]

KPH does not equal MPH, I'm just cringing from this blatant stupidity. In fact 130kph=about 80mph which is typically about where you gotta start worrying about tickets in the US on most Highways. Should they give less tickets yeah but just look at what you just argued for.

 

[Danke]

KPH does not equal MPH, I'm just cringing from this blatant stupidity. In fact 130kph=about 80mph which is typically about where you gotta start worrying about tickets in the US on most Highways. Should they give less tickets yeah but just look at what you just argued for.

Fuck you. I know conversion, dumbass. Stating fact, not arguing for or against, not opinion.

 

[phill4paul]

Hell, I have potential to cause harm. I'm in Afghanistan and trained to kill. Should I not be allowed a gun when I get home in case I get an OEF flashback? I have a higher potential to kill don't I?

Actually, freemail, that is exactly what the government is pushing for. You'd better not mention to your C.O. that you are having a bad day.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...7/09/26/bill_on_gun_restrictions_bogged_down/

Freedom is stolen incrementally.

With driving we began with a .15 BAC which was lowered to a .10.
From .10 it was lowered to a .08 even though there wasn't compelling evidence that lowering BAC would save more lives.
And you know what?
Since the FED strong armed states in the year 2000 to adopt a .08 BAC there has not been a decrease in fatalities. Only more arrests.

Add to this the loss of 4th,5th and 6th Constitutional rights.

Coming soon. .05 BAC, "scarlett" letter license plates, and ignition locks.

For a more reasonable approach to DUI laws check here:

http://www.motorists.org/dui/

 

[Crash Martinez]

I'm with Lew.

 

[brandon]

KPH does not equal MPH, I'm just cringing from this blatant stupidity. In fact 130kph=about 80mph which is typically about where you gotta start worrying about tickets in the US on most Highways. Should they give less tickets yeah but just look at what you just argued for.

Kill yourself, please.

 

[brandon]

//

 

[KenInMontiMN]

The problem is massive overcriminalization; the solution lies in maintaining strict enforcement budget limits and decriminalization while still regulating.

1. The Federal gov't had no business whatsoever demanding that states set lower and uniform bac levels in order to recapture monies taxed from those states. Unconstitutional to meddle in state business, and most states would not have enacted those lower limits voluntarily. Even the founder of MADD joined forces with the hospitality industry in the 90's to lobby against those lower limits. MADD has become a Federally funded business with paid administrative and research positions and is no longer a self-sustaining grassroots victim advocacy group. In short its become a quasi-gov't institution.

2. States need to reduce enforcement to levels they can afford, focusing on and prioritizing those cases that actually resulted in damage of one sort or another. Not to worry, that's going to happen anyway as more and more states can no longer afford the bills resulting from preventative criminalization mentality.

3. Through regulation all of the positive potential is still there to take the obviously impaired driver off the road, impound vehicles, affect drivers license eligibility, and require treatment/counseling for reinstatement. But gone are the ridiculous and compounding criminalization aspects for people that have never inflicted harm on anyone, and all of the social impediments that go along with that in the way of impaired employability for families with such an offender in their midst and all of the compounding social costs associated with mass incarceration and making felons out of people for nothing more than some highly questionable preventative intents. And for those who do inflict damage while behind the wheel nothing is changed in the way of penalties and the law.

4. While every state unfortunately chose to reduce to the new levels or risk losing transportation funding from the Feds, all states still make their own decisions as to prosecution and enforcement levels, and that's where there is hope for a return to sanity on this. Just like a degree of enforcement and prosecutorial discretion gets applied to allowing for margin on speed infractions, the same needs to be done for blood alcohol content levels and criminal prosecutions. And like so many other 'preventative laws,' it may be easier to control the cancerous growth in the justice system these past several decades by taking control of those justice system budgets and insisting on limiting them to traditional and historical levels adjusted for inflation and population growth only. In short quit relying on legislatures to make sound and cost effective judgments as to new laws and penalties, let them play their antisocial games to their hearts' content while simultaneously insuring that the enforcement system is managed in a way that precludes disproportional growth and keeps it lean, efficient, and cost-effective through the application of sound discretion in all matters.

 

[powerofreason]

You clowns have taken a reasonable philosophy of individual liberty, and run with it all the way to the land of utter fucktard absurdity. Good luck recruiting political allies and advancing a small government agenda with this ridiculous anarchist ideology.

"utter fucktard absurdity"
I'll give you credit, you can crank out some decent ad hominems, but I would request you stick to logic and reason in this thread. And I don't need to go around campaigning for the repeal of drunk driving laws. Once people have been introduced to the idea of liberty they will likely come to that conclusion after a while. I am also not an "anarchist." Anarchists are leftists and I am definitely not a leftist. I prefer free-marketeer.

Lets see if I can't sum up my "utter fucktard absurdity" as you so eloquently put it.

1. There is no service we as free people can't provide for each other without institutionalizing violence.

2. Privately owned property always or nearly always finds its best use in a free market.

3. The initiation of force is always wrong. Violence may only be used in self defense.

Sounds like common sense to me.

 

[NaT805]

I have no idea what I believe anymore.

While driving back to school tonight, some retard decided it'd be a good idea to speed down the highway, regardless of the fact that it was and had been sleeting outside for hours. Needless to say, after a few miles I came across an accident (nothing too bad, just in the ditch) and guess who it was...none other than the speeding moron.

These people are just as dangerous as drunk drivers, and I have no idea how I would punish them. I honestly don't know what the correct punishment is for either case, as every case is different.

There is an easy answer: punish them based upon actual harm to individuals and physical damage of property, and with a jury .

 

[andrewh817]

Might as well let blind people drive too while your at it, silly anarchists.

That's a great idea but they'll all crash pretty much immediately until they add Braille to our highways.

I think the reason so many people are for this zero tolerance bullshit is that they don't question what they hear from the media on it. Every news story on drunk driving is about how someone drunk kills a pedestrian, passenger, or other driver.

While I'm not trying to say stories of people making it home safely while intoxicated are newsworthy, look at the other side every once in a while! It's really the same phenomenon that causes ignorance on drug policies. When was the last positive illegal drug story you heard on TV?? On the other hand, I bet half the people reading this could whistle the Enzyte Male Enhancement commercial theme song. This proves the media is basically another branch of government working with the other three to hide the truth.

My opinion on drunk driving?? If you are swerving the fact you are drunk is irrelevant, so you still get the reckless driving ticket. The twist is, if you hurt anyone else (not in your car) or destroy anyone else's property in your accident the DUI fine is added on to the principle.

The way I see it, this will solve the "routine traffic stop" (routine civil liberties suspension) bullshit and let people drive in peace without wasting their time and law enforcement's time.

 

[andrewh817]

I guess your smarter than most of the other posters on this forum even though your position is losing in this poll. Good thing we have you here as the voice crying out in the wilderness to warn us 'fake' liberty loving patriots.

Seriously, this is a Ron Paul forum. Do you think RP would vote to have drunk driving legal? Get a clue. You live in a fantasy world and make this movement seem naive and foolish and it is positions like these that drag down liberty movements.

I'm pretty sure the libertarian movement isn't mainly focused on repealing drunk driving laws and by saying the chat of a few hundred people on the Internet is representative of the "movement" as a whole is extremely ignorant.

And why did you even mention Ron Paul? Are we all supposed to blindly support his every political belief instead of forming our own opinions? That undermines the whole point of his message! Many people on this forum disagree with Ron Paul on abortion for example, are you going to call these people naive and foolish as well?

 

[Matisa]

No, drunk driveing kills, and cause's outragous medical bills and insurance bills.

Peoples lives are alot more important then that...

No way should it ever be legallized !

 

[Danke]

No, drunk driveing kills, and cause's outragous medical bills and insurance bills.

Peoples lives are alot more important then that...

No way should it ever be legallized !

But if the Air Force gave us helmet mounted lazor sights to keep drunk drivers driving straight on the road, would you object?

 

[Anti Federalist]

In reading through this thread, I now understand why Congress still gets re-elected by 90% margins.

Just like every other congressman is an idiot, except my congressman,(The only people who can make that claim, and be correct, are the people of TX-CD14)everybody else is an idiot driver, except me, of course.

In 1982, when all this MADD crap started, 60 percent of driving fatalities were caused by drunk drivers. In 2008, after tossing the fourth, fifth and tenth amendments, roadblocks, checkpoints, "wolfpacks" of cops, 21 year old drinking age, .08 BAC, endless "crackdowns" and with more people in jail than any other country on earth, that figure stands at 41%.

Just like the "drug war", it's not worth it.

I'll take my chances with freedom.

Based on my own experience, I have more to worry about from a cop than a drunk driver.

 

[phill4paul]

In reading through this thread, I now understand why Congress still gets re-elected by 90% margins.

Just like every other congressman is an idiot, except my congressman,(The only people who can make that claim, and be correct, are the people of TX-CD14)everybody else is an idiot driver, except me, of course.

In 1982, when all this MADD crap started, 60 percent of driving fatalities were caused by drunk drivers. In 2008, after tossing the fourth, fifth and tenth amendments, roadblocks, checkpoints, "wolfpacks" of cops, 21 year old drinking age, .08 BAC, endless "crackdowns" and with more people in jail than any other country on earth, that figure stands at 41%.

Just like the "drug war", it's not worth it.

I'll take my chances with freedom.

Based on my own experience, I have more to worry about from a cop than a drunk driver.

Also notice in the article the subtle shift. It used to be end drunk driving. Now it has become end drinking and driving.

"Enjoy the holidays. Have a great time. Just don't drink and drive," he warned.

Marilena Amoni, NHTSA's associate administrator, said drivers need to be held responsible when they choose to drink and drive.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compiled the state-by-state statistics to encourage states at the bottom of the rankings to get tough on drivers who drink.

Also notice NHTSAs cited goals are directly related to MADDS.

Very evident in this article is the NHTSAs methodology for related statistics.

NHTSA defines an alcohol-related fatality as any that occurred in an accident where a driver, pedestrian or cyclist had alcohol detected in their blood. In most states, it is legal to drive with less than 0.08 percent blood alcohol content.

Thats right. A driver with .01 from drinking cough medicine is a raving drunken fiend that has caused a fatality.