The Geek Forum
Main Forums => Political Opinions => Topic started by: Joe Sixpack on September 10, 2009, 09:27:09 AM
-
In the Philip K. Dick novel, The Minority Report, psychic mutants who can see the future give their visions to the police, who use it to arrest people for crimes they have yet to commit (Precrime), and therefore may never commit.
DUI laws allow the police to do essentially the same thing- arrest a citizen for harm they may cause, but have not caused yet. Driving while intoxicated is not in itself harmful to anyone. It's when the person actually crashes the vehicle that the harm is caused, and that may not happen at all.
Discuss.
-
Drunk drivers kill enough innocent people I honestly wish police could see the future and stop these idiots from getting behind the wheel.
Alternatively, the cops could stop them after they are in the vehicle but before they actually go anywhere. At least in that case they would have already broken the law. Might cut back on the disagreements with looking into the future.
Fiction aside, I wish the laws were more harsh for DUI.
-
I'm not talking about breaking the law, exactly. Anything can be made illegal and by definition be against the law.
I'm saying that arresting people for DUI before they have harmed anyone's life, limb, or property amounts to precrime.
-
No, because driving whilst intoxicated is a crime. It's against the law. So although you might not harm anyone you are still guilty of a crime. I understand what you mean by "anything can be made illegal", but I don't think it's precrime. It's almost like risk assessment, for harm provention. And the focus is less on punishing people for the crime they haven't committed, and more on taking unsafe careless drivers off the road.
Novice, In england I think the law states if a police man See's an intoxicated person in a car with the keys they can hold them in a cell or something to that effect. Preventing them from driving whilst intoxicated...sort of what you meant I guess.
-
Novice, In england I think the law states if a police man See's an intoxicated person in a car with the keys they can hold them in a cell or something to that effect. Preventing them from driving whilst intoxicated...sort of what you meant I guess.
Exactly. That's also the law here. Except I believe they can even be charged with a DUI by just having the keys in the ignition.
Using the above definition of precrime, we can also say that arresting someone who is driving a military tank down the middle of the road is precrime. They may not have the intent to harm anyone or their property (and it may even be possible to avoid) but the probability of such an event is too high to tolerate.
-
In your analogy, driving a tank down the street would tear up the street, with is clearly harming property.
-
Perhaps a better analogy is shooting a gun up in the air in a city.
Odds are, when the bullet comes down, it's not going to hit anyone or damage any property.
But it's so reckless and stupid and irresponsible that it's unreasonable to allow it as a class of behavior.
The big thing here is "irresponsible". Without enforcing a level of responsibility, freedoms themselves tend to be meaningless.
-
OP user name+thread topic = LOL
-
But, it would be responsible to reduce your speed to 5mph if you knew that you were driving intoxicated. Reducing one's speed and putting on one's hazard lights would reduce the possibility of harm/injury to near zero.
-
At that point you would split intoxicated drivers into two groups. Those who will gladly drive 5mph with their hazards on to avoid harming someone (assuming the DUI laws were changed to allow this. You might get pulled over for impeding traffic and get a DUI in the process), and those who will continue to try and drive normally to avoid delay or because they believe they are not intoxicated.
Basically, the intoxicated drivers who can potentially cause harm behind the wheel will still exist.
-
And THERE is the crime. Driving while impaired should not be the crime. The crime should be driving in a manner that is unsafe for conditions. Driving in the snow is not a crime. Driving fast in the snow is not a crime. Driving so fast in the snow that you cause an accident is driving in a manner that is unsafe for conditions and IS a crime.
If you're appropriately compensating for the current conditions - be they driver or road conditions - there really should be no crime here.
-
You seem to forget the reason it is illegal to DRIVE while impaired is because of the effects of alcohol. Blacking out, falling asleep (passing out), far slower reactions, and not the best decisions made in split seconds. Being impaired IS a manner unsafe for conditions. Even the word itself "impaired" designates 'unsafe'.
-
I think one thing to bring up here is to clarify what's happening when someone gets a DUI.
In my state (Minnesota) as well as many other states, they don't have to prove you're "impaired" to charge you with DUI, only prove that you're over the "legal limit" for BAC.
I'm of the opinion that not having the "impaired" requirement is tantamount to what J6P is saying... charging someone with a crime for a behavior that doesn't necessarily harm anyone or anyone's property.
I've read a lot on both sides of the issue, but one thing that everyone agrees on is that .08% BAC doesn't necessarily automatically equate to impaired for everybody... it's essentially just an arbitrary number (that is in most cases not even accurately measurable with most portable breathalyzers used in most municipalities, which have a margin of error when properly calibrated of .02%-.03%... so that .08% you blow may in fact be a .05% or as high as .11%), but they'll charge you with DUI whether what you drank is affecting your ability to drive or not.
It is with that I take issue; if they only charged and arrested people for DUI who are actually demonstrably impaired due to intoxication, that's another story.
I saw an interesting news story on the local news about it last year as well. They actually showed a guy who did all the field tests perfectly, including the backwards alphabet (that most people have to think about while sober), seemed rational, lucid and coherent in the video footage of him, wasn't slurring his speech, wasn't wavering, and on top of everything else, he wasn't even pulled over because of his driving... it was at a stupid checkpoint on a holiday weekend on a major thoroughfare.
But because he blew a .08% he was arrested and charged with DUI. I found that unpalatable.
-
And THERE is the crime. Driving while impaired should not be the crime. The crime should be driving in a manner that is unsafe for conditions. Driving in the snow is not a crime. Driving fast in the snow is not a crime. Driving so fast in the snow that you cause an accident is driving in a manner that is unsafe for conditions and IS a crime.
If you're appropriately compensating for the current conditions - be they driver or road conditions - there really should be no crime here.
Well, driving while impaired IS driving in a manner that is unsafe for the conditions. But consumption of alcohol does not automatically equate to impaired driving, as my recent post just discussed.
-
We're arguing degrees. I'm saying that one can go slow enough to compensate for limited capacity caused by inebriation. You're saying that some arbitrary level of intoxication causes a dangerous situation. I'm saying that the level of intoxication combined with excessive rate of travel causes a dangerous situation.
-
We're arguing degrees. I'm saying that one can go slow enough to compensate for limited capacity caused by inebriation. You're saying that some arbitrary level of intoxication causes a dangerous situation. I'm saying that the level of intoxication combined with excessive rate of travel causes a dangerous situation.
I disagree. I think getting behind the wheel of a vehicle while impaired is in and of itself a reckless act, regardless of speed. The impairment by definition precludes operation of that vehicle in a manner that is consistent with being responsible.
If one is capable of operation of said vehicle responsibly, one is not impaired. Being shitfaced drunk and driving 5mph is not an acceptable response in my opinion, unless one is driving that car at 5mph on one's own property.
That's essentially the crux of my argument. A .08% BAC automatically leading to being charged with a crime is arbitrary if impairment is not required as a condition for that charge.
-
We're arguing degrees. I'm saying that one can go slow enough to compensate for limited capacity caused by inebriation.
I don't believe you can. To make such a decision, for one, you would have to be fairly clear-headed to begin with to determine what speed you should drive because of what intoxication level you are at. Drunk people are NOT as competent as sober. You seem to say that they can be.
-
You know, this lack of an impairment requirement for DUI also begs the question: why the hell do they BOTHER with field sobriety tests if blowing a .08% BAC will cause them to charge you anyway?
Might as well just dismiss the walking-a-straight-line-while-blindfolded-and-touching-your-nose-while-hopping-on-one-foot-and-juggling bullshit if you're just going to arrest the guy anyway.
-
Those tests are for the Christmas Party dashcam highlight show.
-
Those tests are for the Christmas Party dashcam highlight show.
Ahhhhhhh, right. Forgot about that.
-
I think drunk drivers who are borderline intoxicated and could potentially drive safely at a reduced speed are attempting to travel at the posted speed limit for fear of getting noticed and arrested for DUI.
-
I think drunk drivers who are borderline intoxicated and could potentially drive safely at a reduced speed are attempting to travel at the posted speed limit for fear of getting noticed and arrested for DUI.
I think for the most part, if you're lucid enough to be able to do that successfully, you aren't impaired, regardless of what your BAC is.
I also think they should have cause to pull you over. Checkpoints are bullshit and unreasonable searches in my opinion. Pull the drunk over for crossing the center line and driving in an irresponsible manner.
Leave people who are driving just fine alone.
-
Doesn't that assume that if you are driving fine (potentially intoxicated) at one point, then you must be able to drive fine the entire length of the trip? One could 'snap back' into concentration when a cop passes but then pass out and hit who knows what.
-
Doesn't that assume that if you are driving fine (potentially intoxicated) at one point, then you must be able to drive fine the entire length of the trip? One could 'snap back' into concentration when a cop passes but then pass out and hit who knows what.
If you are intoxicated enough to pass out without warning, it's pretty doubtful you can "drive fine" at any point.
-
If you are intoxicated enough to pass out without warning, it's pretty doubtful you can "drive fine" at any point.
Not necessarily. People leave clubs, etc. with a higher adrenaline level and much more aware of their surroundings. Then they get in the car and everything quiets down. That's a significant change from when they left the club.
-
True story:
I've staggered out of clubs before, gotten into the truck, and the minute I start that thing up it's like I've had cold water splashed on my face. There are cops up the wazoo where most the clubs I go to are located. Hell, there's a sheriff station right across the street. The important thing here is that when I'm a bit tipsy, I've found my awareness actually goes way way up and I'm probably the driving safer than I normally do otherwise. Although, it's more of an "I don't want my ass busted for DUI" than a "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" reasoning behind it. Last thing I need is be pulled over with me being tipsy and *ing-*ing passed out in the seat next to me. Yeah, that'll go over well. :roll:
Raise the BAC limit, plzkthx.
-
People who get drunk and cause problems ruin it for the rest of us.
-
I'm of the opinion that multiple-DUI offenders are such because they're bad fucking drivers to begin with. Alcohol just makes them that much worse.
The problem is, there doesn't seem to be a way to keep them off the road, aside from prolonged incarceration. I always hear of these assholes that are on their 11th or 12th DUI and haven't had a drivers license in 10 years, but they're still out there, driving hammered, and getting busted regularly for it.
I really think it's THOSE assholes that are ruining it for the rest of us. Sooner or later those fools end up killing a whole family, and what happens next? The stupid BAC limit goes from .10% to .08%.
Because THAT would have prevented that shitfaced moron with a .34% BAC from crossing the median and having a head-on with a minivan full of kids. :roll:
-
I think I prefer and feel safer not taking the chance.
I spoke to an American guy the other day that was cursing out police officers because he got arrested and asserting that he was okay to drink up to nine drinks but the tenth was his limit. I personally think that is ridiculous.
I don't think you should drive whilst under the influence and measuring it for each individual person creates more complication for not much benefit...if you want to drink...get a cab... get a bus... have someone pick you up?
But kids if you are going to drink and drive...remember to have a few lines aswell to help with those reaction! ;)
-
I think I prefer and feel safer not taking the chance.
I spoke to an American guy the other day that was cursing out police officers because he got arrested and asserting that he was okay to drink up to nine drinks but the tenth was his limit. I personally think that is ridiculous.
I don't think you should drive whilst under the influence and measuring it for each individual person creates more complication for not much benefit...if you want to drink...get a cab... get a bus... have someone pick you up?
But kids if you are going to drink and drive...remember to have a few lines aswell to help with those reaction! ;)
But essentially that's banning an entire activity solely due to the reckless and dangerous actions of an irresponsible few. It punishes those who are not engaging in dangerous behavior simply because they step over an arbitrary "line" that doesn't necessarily mean that they're any more dangerous on the road than some of the perfectly sober morons I encounter every day driving around this city, for example.
-
I don't know, there is evidence that says reaction time and things slow down. Also being scootered cant be good for spacial awareness. Then judgement...when I'm drunk I tend to think things are good ideas and invariably they are not.
But okay, say that you are okay to drive whilst drunk. How do you suppose the police test you for that? On the street, where it matters they have to start counting the seconds between each letter as you recite them backwards? Some sort of brain wave activity scanner?
It over complicates matters and opens up a case for arguing peoples corners. By relaxing the laws, it will allow people to bend the laws that little more futher? I think it is probably safer just to keep intoxicated people off the roads. Safer for everyone.
-
But essentially that's banning an entire activity solely due to the reckless and dangerous actions of an irresponsible few. It punishes those who are not engaging in dangerous behavior simply because they step over an arbitrary "line" that doesn't necessarily mean that they're any more dangerous on the road than some of the perfectly sober morons I encounter every day driving around this city, for example.
So... like the gun-control laws?
-
So... like the gun-control laws?
Actually, that did come to mind.
-
But okay, say that you are okay to drive whilst drunk.
Absolutely not. I am equating "drunk" with "impaired" here. I'm saying I'm okay to drive after a few beers/drinks/whathaveyou, because despite what that may do to my BAC, it doesn't necessarily make me drunk or impaired.
How do you suppose the police test you for that? On the street, where it matters they have to start counting the seconds between each letter as you recite them backwards? Some sort of brain wave activity scanner?
Sure, why not? They do field sobriety tests in most states anyway if they suspect you've been drinking or may be impaired in some other way (like from some other substance that isn't alcohol). Those are pretty good, considering that the things those tests are checking for -- mental accuity, eye-hand coordination, spatial judgement, balance and awareness -- are all things that without them, you probably shouldn't be driving anyway.
It over complicates matters and opens up a case for arguing peoples corners. By relaxing the laws, it will allow people to bend the laws that little more futher? I think it is probably safer just to keep intoxicated people off the roads. Safer for everyone.
But that's my point. I agree 100% that we should keep intoxicated people off the roads.
-
The sobriety tests in this country are a point of ridicule for the most parts, there rate of inaccuracy is making them seem a little pointless. I guess if its something you're really passionate about then funding could go into researching methods of testing the difference between an intoxicated sober person and a intoxicated drunk person.
However, I would rather my 'dollar' go to fund a national health care system to help people less fortunite that me get affordable medical care. But that's just the socialist in me, and in the essence of fairness its not THAT improtant for me to have a few drinks and then drive. Maybe its easier for me to say because England is so much smaller; so getting from bar to house is cheaper, but that's just how I feel. Sometimes it's a pain in the arse but for the most part I don't mind.
I think what your saying makes sense, but for me the money and effort just isn't worth the benefit.
-
an intoxicated sober person
No such thing! I think we're tripping over terms here. For all intents and purposes, I'm saying
intoxicated == impaired
impaired == unfit for driving
sober == not impaired (unless you're just that bad a driver to begin with, and there are plenty of those)
Effectively, I'm simply saying let's stop punishing people who aren't effed up enough to be any more of a danger to other drivers than they otherwise would be.
And it's not difficult to tell if someone's impaired. Talk to any law officer who has done highway patrol. With a little experience, they can pretty well nail when someone is or is not fit to drive, regardless of breathalyzers.
-
So what you are saying is. Instead of using machines and having hard and fast rules, people should use common sense.
Not all people, including police men have it though...and there in lies the problem.
Also, if the decision is left up to the police officer then they would be liable presumably for making the wrong call. Which, I would imagine would lead to police officers calling in DUI's just to air on the cautious side. Especially in this 'Sue' culture we have now.
-
So what you are saying is. Instead of using machines and having hard and fast rules, people should use common sense.
Not all people, including police men have it though...and there in lies the problem.
Also, if the decision is left up to the police officer then they would be liable presumably for making the wrong call. Which, I would imagine would lead to police officers calling in DUI's just to air on the cautious side. Especially in this 'Sue' culture we have now.
Well, if they make the call that someone's unfit to drive, use the breathalyzer as well to back that up. I'm not saying throw the breathalyzer away, but make it part of the whole picture, just not the ONLY picture, because that simply isn't fair or accurate.
I should also point out that in Minnesota anyway, one doesn't have to be over the legal BAC limit to be charged with DUI. If the officer decides you were impaired here, but you only blew a .03%, they can still charge you, arrest you and throw the book at you.
-
So I guess if it works one way...then I should work the other way too. That makes sense.
-
Driving isn't a right.
Nor should it be.
I happily accept any laws that restrict the use of these multi-ton mechanisms propelled by God knows who down my quiet street.
For me, there's no percentage in drinking and driving. The short-term pleasure of drinking somewhere besides my home (where the liquor is usually superior anyway) is mightilly outweighed by the potential of having my entire life fucked up because of an unfortunate congruence of an actionable BAC and a broken taillight. Or whatever. You never know when something like this (http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_13298851) can come hurling your way.
-
So I guess if it works one way...then I should work the other way too. That makes sense.
Exactly. I greatly dislike the fact that the law is so broad in one way that it can be left totally up to the judgement of the arresting officer... yet be so inflexible the other way as to be a "zero tolerance" situation when it comes to Blood Alcohol Content, regardless of whether or not the individual is ACTUALLY impaired.
You can't have it both ways. Or at least, you shouldn't.
-
Driving isn't a right.
Nor should it be.
I happily accept any laws that restrict the use of these multi-ton mechanisms propelled by God knows who down my quiet street.
For me, there's no percentage in drinking and driving. The short-term pleasure of drinking somewhere besides my home (where the liquor is usually superior anyway) is mightilly outweighed by the potential of having my entire life fucked up because of an unfortunate congruence of an actionable BAC and a broken taillight. Or whatever. You never know when something like this (http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_13298851) can come hurling your way.
For what it's worth, I agree with you. If I am out and I am driving, I don't drink. If I do have a drink (while out to dinner), I stay for dessert. And conversation. And as long as I think it's necessary for the drink to have metabolized... and then I wait a little longer just for good measure.
It just isn't worth it.
-
For what it's worth...
It's worth plenty.
-
For what it's worth, I agree with you. If I am out and I am driving, I don't drink. If I do have a drink (while out to dinner), I stay for dessert. And conversation. And as long as I think it's necessary for the drink to have metabolized... and then I wait a little longer just for good measure.
It just isn't worth it.
So realistically you blood alcohol would never get you into trouble.. you admit you dont want to have more alcohol in your system you just want the RIGHT to have it.
"Here! I-I've got an idea. Suppose that you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb — which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' — but that he can have the right to have babies"
-
With my body weight, a couple of beers is all it takes for me to blow a .08%, regardless of how much it actually affects me (and since I tend to drink things like scotch and bourbon without mixers, a couple of beers won't affect me at all).
However, the stupid .08% law only tends to deter people like me... someone who's responsible enough to not engage in irresponsible vehicular behavior to begin with.
For the aforementioned 12 DUI assholes, all it is is more nose for them to disregard.
-
Here! I-I've got an idea. Suppose that you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb — which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' — but that he can have the right to have babies
Are you with the Judean Peoples' Front, or the Peoples' Front of Judea?
Tell me you're not with the fucking PFJ. :x
-
Monty Python? ... No?
-
Yes!
-
I can't keep up with the speed of the posts!
-
It's from the adjoining scene, dear.
IIRC.
-
I hit post and it didnt tell me another post had been...well posted!
I want to get set-up on the irc, but 12 said no one idles there.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE#noexternalembed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE#noexternalembed)
-
Yeah I know, I watched it the other night! I think I prefer holy grail though!
-
I hit post and it didnt tell me another post had been...well posted!
I want to get set-up on the irc, but 12 said no one idles there.
I'm in there almost every day, as is Biz, most of the time.
-
I got the another post notification, but blithely ignored it, thus perpetuating the misunderstanding. And my BAC is like 0% right now.
-
How do you guys get any work done? I'm only ever in one place at a time, and it still conflicts with my... oops, gotta go.
-
How do you guys get any work done? I'm only ever in one place at a time, and it still conflicts with my... oops, gotta go.
<---- Unemployed. :(
-
<---- bad attitude
-
<--------- Clumsy
-
<----- was smoking hookah. Actually was about to reply but realized I was just on page 2.
Also, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8#noexternalembed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8#noexternalembed)
-
<---------------- Slightly more caught up.
Like removing a bucketful of water from the ocean.
-
<------------------ Missed the party.
School's back in.
-
<------------------ Missed the party.
School's back in.
Yeah, I know. I'm back doing my night classes again. At least this semester should be my last one providing I pass these last two classes. Hooray for finally getting a crappy two year degree! :roll:
-
On a completely off topic, topic, I still can't appreciate enough how I, as your waitress, can get fined my entire year's salary or more just because you are an irresponsible jackass who drank too much got behind the wheel of a car and got into an accident. Somehow it's my fault you don't know when to quit drinking.
It's like waiting on a child, I'm counting your drinks, talking to you, not because I like you or because I'm falling for your bad jokes and pick up lines, but because I'm responsible for when to cut you off when you've had enough. :x WTH?
-
Wow! That really took off.
First of all, props to Teh Geekery for discussing an unpopular subject intelligently and not just flaming the poster (I assume that was all taken care of via shoutbox and PM).
There's kind of an interesting dynamic going on here. I would guess that most members, or at least frequent posters here would fall into the libertarian/small government camp, yet there is a sentiment that having the police/the state/the government arrest people for harm they have not yet caused (I am avoiding the word "crime" on purpose) is not only OK, but something we should possibly do more of, or at least penalize more harshly.
-
there is a sentiment that having the police/the state/the government arrest people for harm they have not yet caused (I am avoiding the word "crime" on purpose) is not only OK, but something we should possibly do more of, or at least penalize more harshly.
I disagree strongly with that statement.
-
I disagree as well; I think it fits perfectly. The underlying 'reason' for proponents of arrest is to punish for irresponsible behavior. The Libertarian/Small Gov camp (as I understand) holds personal responsibilty as paramount. I think the sentiment is more "if someone is that irresponsible; stop them before they encroach on me or mine".
-
Would you say that if the subject were, say, carbon tax instead of DUI?
"if someone is that irresponsible; stop them before they encroach on me or mine".
This is such a slippery slope... the implications are just horrific. When they encroach on you or yours is when your rights have been violated. Not before.
-
Would you say that if the subject were, say, carbon tax instead of DUI?
? Please explain. I'm not following you on this one. Are you implying that driving in itself is irresponsible (to the environment), and that a carbon tax is essentially functioning the same as an arrest for DUI?
This is such a slippery slope... the implications are just horrific. When they encroach on you or yours is when your rights have been violated. Not before.
That is true. I did say, however, the sentiment is... not that more restrictive laws be passed. The fact is, however, like it or not; the law is "driving while impaired IS a crime." It has nothing to actually do with my or any others' (uninvolved) rights; being violated or not.
-
? Please explain. I'm not following you on this one. Are you implying that driving in itself is irresponsible (to the environment), and that a carbon tax is essentially functioning the same as an arrest for DUI?
I'm saying that polluting is seen as irresponsible and can easily be legislated that way, and for a consequence that may or may not ever occur. Are you for the state punishing CO2 spewers?
The point is that lots of things can be seen as irresponsible in some way or another.
-
Aren't we already taxed on fuels, tho? Fuel has the highest tax applied that I'm aware of. So I would have to oppose a carbon tax on the stance that I've already BEEN taxed at the pump (for auto fuel) and in my power bill (the tax utilities pay on fuels is passed on to you and I).
And it's true; many things are irresponsible, many more could be considered irresponsible depending on circumstance; but few have the enormity of impact that impaired drivers do. Since it IS a society; when one activity begins to stand out as a killer of so many innocent people; it needs to be addressed in some fashion.
-
YOU LIE!
-
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.
-
Sorry, that just sort of burst out of me appropos of nothing.
I would guess that most members, or at least frequent posters here would fall into the libertarian/small government camp, yet there is a sentiment that having the police/the state/the government arrest people for harm they have not yet caused (I am avoiding the word "crime" on purpose) is not only OK, but something we should possibly do more of, or at least penalize more harshly.
All the on-line political positioning quizzes I've taken always drop me in the left-libertarian quadrant. Many of my friends here drop into the right-libertarian quadrant. So there are some key differences, mostly in this area of debate: if government, however small we can manage to keep it, is to have ANY function, what would that function be?
My left-libertarian opinion is that government's primary job is to serve and protect the citizenry in areas where individuals cannot feasibly serve and protect themselves. Issues of traffic control (a subject I obsess about) are a flashpoint in debates about personal responsibility vs. governemnt control.
The problem here is that no amount of personal responsibility on my part can protect me from people who can't, for whatever reason, drive in a way that does not endanger me. So whatever rules and regulations people come up with to slow everyone the fuck down and reduce fatalities are fine with me.
This is not a constitutional issue. Driving fast and drunk is not a goddam right.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
And,
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.
-
If showing you the implications of your generalized statements is not a legitimate "debate tactic" then I don't know what is.
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?
-
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. :lol:
-
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.
-
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. :-)
-
There was only one time I was wrong. That's the time I thought I was wrong but I was really right.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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- (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.
-
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 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html).
-
What can I say, the man makes a lot of sense.
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.
-
Two words: Free State Project (http://www.freestateproject.org/)
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549721,00.html?test=latestnews (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.