Should Drunk Driving Be Legal?

[Scofield]

Should we not also prescribe the death penalty for drivers that speed, spin out of control and kill another?

"A 2005 study by the German Federal Interior Ministry (Bundesministerium des Innern) indicated that Autobahn sections with unrestricted speed have the same accident record as sections with speed limits."

There is a staunch difference between driving drunk and speeding.

Edit: I also wasn't being serious (realistic is more the word, because there are times I think death suits people who continuously get DUI's) when I mentioned the death penalty. I would never sentence someone to death over a traffic accident (as long as it wasn't premeditated like you said).

 

[phill4paul]

"A 2005 study by the German Federal Interior Ministry (Bundesministerium des Innern) indicated that Autobahn sections with unrestricted speed have the same accident record as sections with speed limits."

There is a staunch difference between driving drunk and speeding.

Edit: I also wasn't being serious (realistic is more the word, because there are times I think death suits people who continuously get DUI's) when I mentioned the death penalty. I would never sentence someone to death over a traffic accident (as long as it wasn't premeditated like you said).

Where lies the difference? Driving drunk and speeding kills. Just look at the NHTSA statistics. We are in America after all not Germany.

My point being the is no parity in laws regarding drunk driving and other moving violations.

You may drive recklessly. Totally sober but riding every ones' ass, swerving in and out of traffic, talking on your cell phone while eating a cheesy MAC and yelling at your kids in the back. This would generally carry a fine. Though most states are strengthening these laws on your first offense it may just warrant a warning.

Now you may have had a few drinks at a friends dinner party. Let's say just three and feel you are alright to drive. You are obeying the rules of the road when you turn down a street and run into a road block. Now based on you weight
even though you were driving perfectly safe a machine may decide that you are an impaired driver.

Do you think they will let you off with a warning?

 

[MikeStanart]

This thread is stupidity on stilts. It's a perfect example of small-minded humans attempting to force the square peg of a chaotic universe into the round hole of a political ideology. It works like this:

A dumbass arrives at the conclusion that liberty is good.

Then the dumbass extends that conclusion to the belief that anything that infringes on liberty is bad.

Pretty soon, the dumbass is spouting all kinds of ridiculous crap, like "It's fine if you shoot guns at my face if the property owner is ok with it" and "drunk driving isn't a criminal act".

The end result being that the vast majority of people think libertarians are batshit insane.

The world is not black and white, it is an infinite gradation of colors, and people that refuse to see subtlety are not principled, they're just stupid.

I completely agree. Its moronic ideas like legalization of drunk driving which is

going to kill any credibility we have with ANYONE. I understand the arguments

cited here; but don't kid yourselves. Driving under the influence will never be

acceptable.

 

[MikeStanart]

I find these pro-legalization arguments silly.

Saying that you should be allowed to drink and drive as long as you don't hurt

anyone is like saying its ok to shoot an automatic weapon into a crowded street

as long as you don't hurt anyone.

 

[Scofield]

I find these pro-legalization arguments silly.

Saying that you should be allowed to drink and drive as long as you don't hurt

anyone is like saying its ok to shoot an automatic weapon into a crowded street

as long as you don't hurt anyone.

That is a great analogy.

Well done.

 

[trey4sports]

its simple.

you own the rights to your home/property
however
you do not own the rights to the highway/road/street therfore you do NOT have the same freedoms you do in your home
the road is property of the community so they should make the BAC rules (or lack thereof) and you abide by them.

 

[cordscords]

I find these pro-legalization arguments silly.

Saying that you should be allowed to drink and drive as long as you don't hurt

anyone is like saying its ok to shoot an automatic weapon into a crowded street

as long as you don't hurt anyone.

Again what are the rules that have been put in place on that street?

What was the purpose of shooting the weapon? Was there intent to harm? Or just to test out your fun little toy?

 

[pcosmar]

I find these pro-legalization arguments silly.

Saying that you should be allowed to drink and drive as long as you don't hurt

anyone is like saying its ok to shoot an automatic weapon into a crowded street

as long as you don't hurt anyone.

What a stupid analogy.
I just love to see these kind of Anti- gun analogies used to promote anti- liberty ideas.

First there is NO comparison. They are two entirely different things. It a just a way to bring the fear tactics and disinformation to the 2nd amendment debate.
Automobiles are designed as a means of personal transportation.
Guns are designed to kill.
Alcohol is a substance for personal consumption, with both positive and negative effects.

FACTS are often ignored in Emotional debates.
Those who wish to continue to promote social control are opposed to personal freedom, and use emotional arguments rather than facts.
We saw that very clearly in this last "election".

Drinking and driving is not a good idea or a good thing.
But the FACT is, driving a car is NOT SAFE.
Drunk drivers are the cause of a small minority of car accidents. But they are the main target for social control.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

 

[TER]

What a stupid analogy.
I just love to see these kind of Anti- gun analogies used to promote anti- liberty ideas.

First there is NO comparison. They are two entirely different things. It a just a way to bring the fear tactics and disinformation to the 2nd amendment debate.
Automobiles are designed as a means of personal transportation.
Guns are designed to kill.
Alcohol is a substance for personal consumption, with both positive and negative effects.

FACTS are often ignored in Emotional debates.
Those who wish to continue to promote social control are opposed to personal freedom, and use emotional arguments rather than facts.
We saw that very clearly in this last "election".

Drinking and driving is not a good idea or a good thing.
But the FACT is, driving a car is NOT SAFE.
Drunk drivers are the cause of a small minority of car accidents. But they are the main target for social control.

Would you just come to your senses already and stop making a fool out of yourself?

 

[Roxi]

There is a status called "legally blind" which means that you are beyond the ability of modern corrective lenses to correct your vision.

BTW, if you have a 1.0 alcohol level, you are really dead. Your blood is pure alcohol.

thats not what legally blind means.... I am "legally blind" in one eye... i can get it corrected though, with either a lens or surgery

heres the wiki definition:

legal blindness is defined as visual acuity (vision) of 20/200 (6/60) or less in the better eye with best correction possible. This means that a legally blind individual would have to stand 20 feet (6.1 m) from an object to see it—with vision correction—with the same degree of clarity as a normally sighted person could from 200 feet (61 m).

 

[pcosmar]

Would you just come to your senses already and stop making a fool out of yourself?

Sorry, sometimes I do feel like John the Baptist.
a Voice crying out in the wilderness.
The Socialists have been indoctrinating this country with the Gospel of social conformity and social control since the 1800s and more so since the early 1900s.
They now control the courts,the government and public education.
And yet I will speak out against it. At any opportunity.

 

[TER]

Sorry, sometimes I do feel like John the Baptist.
a Voice crying out in the wilderness.
The Socialists have been indoctrinating this country with the Gospel of social conformity and social control since the 1800s and more so since the early 1900s.
They now control the courts,the government and public education.
And yet I will speak out against it. At any opportunity.

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.

 

[pcosmar]

Seriously, this is a Ron Paul forum.

Did you read my sig line? Hmmm.
Ron Paul does Not support drug use, but does support ending the drug war.
He does support Freedom.
He opposes the Police state.
He would never support locking up someone for nothing more than personal stupidity, if that person had caused NO harm.
Read through his library. If you dare.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?

I fear that Congress will use this terrible event to push for more government mandated mental health programs. The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions. Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but it is the role of doctors and families, not the government, to diagnose and treat such illnesses.

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

 

[TER]

Did you read my sig line? Hmmm.
Ron Paul does Not support drug use, but does support ending the drug war.
He does support Freedom.
He opposes the Police state.
He would never support locking up someone for nothing more than personal stupidity, if that person had caused NO harm.
Read through his library. If you dare.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

I think the correct sentence would be "He would never support locking up someone for nothing more than personal stupidity, unless other people's lives or properties were at great risk"

Goverment cannot create a world without risks, but a society can form a government which helps reduce certain risks such as innocent deaths due to drunk driving. This is why most governments are formed- to decrease the risk of death, albeit from a neighboring tribe, an inhospitable environment, or an idiot drunk driver that cant make a clear thinking decision.

Ron Paul is not an anarchist. You are on the wrong web site.

Please come to your senses. Legalizing drunk driving would create many more innocent deaths. This is not rocket science.

 

[brandon]

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

OH FFS, this is just retarded. Silly tyrannical statist.

I drive with a BAC over the legal limit almost every single weekend. I have been doing this for as long as I can remember. I drive just fine and have never hurt anyone.

I'm sure there are plenty of sober drivers that have killed people in the past few years simply because they are bad drivers.

I agree with OP and Lew.

 

[TER]

I drive with a BAC over the legal limit almost every single weekend. I have been doing this for as long as I can remember. I drive just fine and have never hurt anyone.

This mentality is exactly my point. Legalizing drunk driving would create many more innocent deaths, pure and simple, because the drunker you are, the more likely you will believe "you won't hurt anyone".

 

[pcosmar]

Ron Paul is not an anarchist. You are on the wrong web site.

I am not sure who is in the wrong place.

This from Ron Paul,

Benjamin Franklin once addressed this issue by saying that anyone who would "give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." As we grieve an accidental death, we must make sure that in our sorrow we do not create a larger tragedy by allowing government to improperly take on powers and responsibilities it should not have, or to unnecessarily expand those that it does.

When the government does this great harm is inevitably done in the name of "protecting" people. The scariest words in modern lexicon are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Government cannot protect us from accidents any more than it can tax us into prosperity.

Our Constitution purposefully specifies the manner in which laws can take effect, to minimize the threat of rule by emotion of the moment. But then, our Constitution also specifically limits the powers the federal government, yet that has not stopped our federal leaders from passing laws which have no constitutional base.

As our nation grieves the loss of a man of considerable and varied talent, let us not rush to remember him in a way which discounts the rule of law, which dishonors the notions of individual responsibility, and which ignores our system of government. It's easy to look for a quick fix from government. But it is also very dangerous.

Ron does not support a Nanny State , or Social Control.

 

[Danke]

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.

 

[TER]

Reckless endangerment is a law developed BY THE PEOPLE to protect the INNOCENT from those who DONT CARE. Please WAKE UP.

 

[Theocrat]

Questions to Consider

This mentality is exactly my point. Legalizing drunk driving would create many more innocent deaths, pure and simple, because the drunker you are, the more likely you will believe "you won't hurt anyone".

In pcosmar's defense, I think his point is if our civil government begins to regulate drivers' behaviors at every single level, where does it end (especially if the driver has done no bodily harm to another)? Would the State have the legitimacy to pass laws preventing people from listening to loud music in their own cars just because it may break their concentration? Would the government have a right to impose statutes on drivers to prevent them from drinking too much caffeine while driving on the road? Where do you draw the line between potential threat to other drivers and the rights/responsibilities of the driver himself?