Topic: DUI laws and The Minority Report (Read 15685 times)

12AX7 · « **Reply #75 on:** September 11, 2009, 11:14:37 AM »

Quote from: Joe Sixpack on September 11, 2009, 11:07:18 AM

So we shouldn't be allowed to smoke. Kills lots of people.
We shouldn't be allowed to drive cars at all. Kill lots of people.
We shouldn't be able to fuck. Lots of diseases and all.
We shouldn't be able to go outside, skin cancer, you know.
Wars are out of the question, of course.
Got it.

  So you can't debate anymore.
  All you can do is this sort of thing.
  You're not sure how to just debate the real topic without being antagonistic.
  Got it.

12AX7 · « **Reply #76 on:** September 11, 2009, 11:16:19 AM »

And,

Quote from: ivan on September 11, 2009, 11:13:24 AM

You smoking does not kill me. Go ahead and smoke. You fucking does not infect me. Go ahead and fuck. You going outside does not affect me. Go ahead and go outside.

Now, your driving can affect me, especially if you are unable to stay in your goddam lane. I prefer you not drive at all, but I'll settle for asking that you at least be able to properly operate that deadly machine of yours.

And wars should be out of the question.

that.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #77 on:** September 11, 2009, 11:24:13 AM »

If showing you the implications of your generalized statements is not a legitimate "debate tactic" then I don't know what is.

Quote

You smoking does not kill me. Go ahead and smoke. You fucking does not infect me. Go ahead and fuck. You going outside does not affect me. Go ahead and go outside.

Now, your driving can affect me, especially if you are unable to stay in your goddam lane. I prefer you not drive at all, but I'll settle for asking that you at least be able to properly operate that deadly machine of yours.

And wars should be out of the question.

Secondhand smoke? Clearly irresponsible.
My rogering certainly can affect you. I can be hammering you. Or could have been plowing someone in the past that you are screwing now or plan to boink in the future.
My pisspoor driving does not affect you *until I do something bad*. That's sort of the point of this thread.

edit: Oh, and, I agree wars are generally bad, mmmk, but you also imply that some body out there should be able to enforce the no wars law. Who would that be? And if you were, say, fighting for US independence, or WWII, would you be ok with that?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #78 on:** September 11, 2009, 12:03:46 PM »

Quote from: ivan on September 11, 2009, 11:13:24 AM

You smoking does not kill me. Go ahead and smoke. You fucking does not infect me. Go ahead and fuck. You going outside does not affect me. Go ahead and go outside.

Now, your driving can affect me, especially if you are unable to stay in your goddam lane. I prefer you not drive at all, but I'll settle for asking that you at least be able to properly operate that deadly machine of yours.

And wars should be out of the question.

I'm with Ivan on this one.

And 12AX7, J6P wasn't out of line there, nor was he antagonistic. I think he was succinct and to the point, and was exploring what he felt was a logical conclusion to that line of thought.

He was wrong, but I think we can all agree that J6P has the right to be wrong from time to time.

BizB · « **Reply #79 on:** September 11, 2009, 12:19:09 PM »

I'm of the opinion that driving drunk should be punished and the punishment should be severe. Where we have an issue is how the government agency is determining one's degree of intoxication and inability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

12AX7 · « **Reply #80 on:** September 11, 2009, 01:34:11 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on September 11, 2009, 12:03:46 PM

And 12AX7, J6P wasn't out of line there, nor was he antagonistic.

Yeh, I don't really care. I had to leave to go buff the compound off my bike.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #81 on:** September 11, 2009, 02:01:41 PM »

There was only one time I was wrong. That's the time I thought I was wrong but I was really right.

ivan · « **Reply #82 on:** September 11, 2009, 03:47:52 PM »

Quote from: Joe Sixpack on September 11, 2009, 11:24:13 AM

Secondhand smoke? Clearly irresponsible.

If I am in a situation where I have to breathe your secondhand smoke, I will deal with it myself in an appropriate manner. I have a degree of control and personal responsibility in this matter. For example, no one -- not even our most esteemed guests -- have been allowed to smoke in our house for over 10 years now. If I'm at your house and you light up, I can leave.

Quote

My rogering certainly can affect you. I can be hammering you. Or could have been plowing someone in the past that you are screwing now or plan to boink in the future.

I take full responsibility for the consequences of my boinkage. You may proceed unfettered.

Quote

My pisspoor driving does not affect you *until I do something bad*. That's sort of the point of this thread.

Driving drunk has been defined by our society as "something bad". So when you drive drunk, your are "doing something bad".

Maybe your argument should instead be that driving drunk is not a bad thing. If you convince enough people that driving drunk is not a bad thing, then maybe the drunk driving laws will be repealed. Then we can work on other restrictive laws, like the silly ban on driving while blind, or driving while three, or driving while too old to remember your name.

Quote

edit: Oh, and, I agree wars are generally bad, mmmk, but you also imply that some body out there should be able to enforce the no wars law. Who would that be? And if you were, say, fighting for US independence, or WWII, would you be ok with that?

Wars SHOULD be out of the question. Maybe, some day, they will be.

12AX7 · « **Reply #83 on:** September 11, 2009, 04:54:47 PM »

Quote from: ivan on September 11, 2009, 03:47:52 PM

Wars SHOULD be out of the question. Maybe, some day, they will be.

Wars are, essentially, illegal under US law. It takes, literally, an act of Congress (our legislature) to "repeal" that "law". Generally, it takes a pretty damn good reason, backed by unrefutable evidence, and concurred upon by a majority of lawmakers; as does repealing any actual law already in place.

12AX7 · « **Reply #84 on:** September 11, 2009, 05:00:32 PM »

Also, smoking IS banned in most public places, and there are already laws against knowingly infecting another person; through boinking or not. If you can provide research showing one's irresponsibility with the Sun can harm another individual or their property, I'm certain there will be a statute addressing it.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #85 on:** September 11, 2009, 11:33:01 PM »

Quote from: ivan on September 11, 2009, 03:47:52 PM

Driving drunk has been defined by our society as "something bad". So when you drive drunk, your are "doing something bad".

Maybe your argument should instead be that driving drunk is not a bad thing. If you convince enough people that driving drunk is not a bad thing, then maybe the drunk driving laws will be repealed. Then we can work on other restrictive laws, like the silly ban on driving while blind, or driving while three, or driving while too old to remember your name.

I think that's what the essence of the original post is, yes - drunk driving, in and of itself, is not inherently bad. Irresponsible, yes. Morally wrong, probably so. But not harm to life, limb, or property. A threat to those things, but there are plenty of threats that are perfectly legal.

ivan · « **Reply #86 on:** September 12, 2009, 12:47:30 PM »

Quote from: Joe Sixpack on September 11, 2009, 11:33:01 PM

I think that's what the essence of the original post is, yes - drunk driving, in and of itself, is not inherently bad. Irresponsible, yes. Morally wrong, probably so. But not harm to life, limb, or property. A threat to those things, but there are plenty of threats that are perfectly legal.

Well, a lot of people will disagree with that. Willfully increasing the risk to life, limb or property of others is not a good thing, and not a neutral thing either. That leaves only bad. Like stacking dynomite near your neighbor's fence and flicking pebbles at it. Just because the consequences of an action are not a foregone conclusion does not mean the action should be legal.

Driving blind is illegal, although being blind is not. Driving drunk is illegal, even though being drunk is not. Driving when you are 3 years old is illegal even though being 3 years old is not.

The main problem in taking on this argument is that traffic laws are a special category of law that is not based on constitutional rights. Driving automobiles is not a right guaranteed by the constitution, but a priviledge granted to you by your State, a priviledge that can be revoked at the State's discretion. Each State can make up its own rules, and they don't have to be constitutional about it. If your State decides to make it illegal for you to chat on your Motorola Razor while driving, it can, despite the possible impingement of free speech. The State can punish you for not wearing a helmet while putting along on your Harley, and for not using seatbelts in your fully airbagged Saturn.

So drunk driving laws exist not because people think driving drunk is intrinsically bad, but because your State decided that drunk driving poses a significant risk and should be severelly discouraged. And that is all it needs to make it law.

What you need to do is start a grass-roots campaign in a State where a bunch of people want to drive drunk, get some pro-drunk-driving candidates elected and kick the stupid drunk-driving law in the ass. Good luck with that. There's not a State in the Union where something like that has a snowflake's chance in Hell of happening, except for maybe... uh...

Well, at least you wouldn't have to move.

ivan · « **Reply #87 on:** September 12, 2009, 01:04:10 PM »

Now, HERE is something that was rightly challenged and overturned:

http://www.freep.com/article/20090912/NEWS03/909120341/1318/Court-tosses-breath-tests-for-minors- (thank you, frak)

Note, however, that if these teens were driving, no such constitutional challenge could be made.

ivan · « **Reply #88 on:** September 12, 2009, 03:23:09 PM »

Joe, looks like your go-to guy on this is paleolibertarian and Ron Paul's ghost writer Lew Rockwell: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #89 on:** September 13, 2009, 12:20:57 AM »

What can I say, the man makes a lot of sense.

Quote

So drunk driving laws exist not because people think driving drunk is intrinsically bad, but because your State decided that drunk driving poses a significant risk and should be severelly discouraged. And that is all it needs to make it law.

Only indirectly, in the sense that when one guy says "let's make this unpopular thing X illegal", no one can be the other guy sticking up for unpopular thing X.

And I don't live in Vermont, which I'm sure is the state you're thinking of.

BizB · « **Reply #90 on:** September 13, 2009, 09:37:42 AM »

Two words: Free State Project

12AX7 · « **Reply #91 on:** September 13, 2009, 08:09:43 PM »

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549721,00.html?test=latestnews

"...Officers can't hold down a suspect and force them to breath into a tube, she noted, but they can forcefully take blood — a practice that's been upheld by Idaho's Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court...

...they will draw blood of any suspected drunk driver who refuses a breath test. They'll use force if they need to, such as getting help from another officer to pin down a suspect and potentially strap them down, Watson said."

I don't get how they can't force you to blow in a breathalyzer, but they can force you to let them take blood. Makes no sense.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: DUI laws and The Minority Report (Read 15685 times)

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7