i dont disagree with drunk driving laws, but i do disagree with the arbitrary .08 BAC rule. a person has no way of knowing whether they are .079 or .080. field sobriety tests should make the determination and they should be videotaped. if the case goes to trial, then a jury or unbiased third party can see the tapes and make a judgement.

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 6:32 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2011 6:25:45 PM

Quote :

"if dui is no longer against the law, the cops don't really have a lot of options in this situation unless we allow them to start arresting people for driving under the speed limit, weaving, not coming to a complete stop, or any of the other traffic violations that initiate dui suspicion stops."

Well if you continue to drive erratically after receiving a ticket for reckless endangerment, the officer should arrest you. They usually watch the person drive off in these cases, and follow for a bit (as they should).

1/8/2011 6:30:47 PM

Quote :

"a person has no way of knowing whether they are .079 or .080"

Evidence in this state is truncated. So if you provide a breath sampled and its a 0.079 its recorded as 0.07: benefit of the doubt is given to the defendant. Another example is radar; you might be going 59.99999484/35 MPH ZONE but its record as 59.

Quote :

"§ 20-138.1. Impaired driving. (a) Offense. – A person commits the offense of impaired driving if he drives any vehicle upon any highway, any street, or any public vehicular area within this State: (1) While under the influence of an impairing substance; or (2) After having consumed sufficient alcohol that he has, at any relevant time after the driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. The results of a chemical analysis shall be deemed sufficient evidence to prove a person's alcohol concentration; or (3) With any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance, as listed in G.S. 90-89, or its metabolites in his blood or urine."

Under this states law, if you can recite Constitution backwards or fall flat on your face, 0.08 is guilty. I won't state my opinions because they are super bias (lost a family member to DWI, was nailed by a DWI driver last spring) but any questions about implied consent, DWI, SFSTs, I can help steer the thread.

1/8/2011 6:48:27 PM

Quote :

"Do we offer those people a chance to prove their [drunk] driving ability? Or do we simple convict them, as though they were really endangering others?"

Why do we need to do so? The law says don't do X. They did X. Whether they were directly endangering others has no bearing as to whether they did X.

1/8/2011 6:48:42 PM

Quote :

"Why do we need to do so? The law says don't do X. They did X. Whether they were directly endangering others has no bearing as to whether they did X."

Well, guess we can close this thread now. The law is the law, no need to discuss it

1/8/2011 7:03:29 PM

not at all. The guy asked if people could be let of because they weren't actually endangering others. But the law doesn't say that you are guilty if you are endangering others. get out of here with that stupidity.

The right thing to ask would be if the metric of .08 is a valid one on the whole. That some people are "fine" at .08 doesn't invalidate the metric on the whole. If 95% of the people are seriously impaired at .08, would you say it's good enough? How much does it need to encompass to be good enough?

If you don't want to go by .08, then what do you want to go by? A subjective test that is open to interpretation? You think a concrete line of .08 is abusive, just wait till the cop can merely say he "thinks you are too drunk" and then can throw you in jail

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 7:08 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2011 7:05:04 PM

^
We are discussing the merits of said law. The law itself is not an argument in this thread.

1/8/2011 7:08:17 PM

the "merits" of the law was NOT what indy was asking about, though, when he referenced my quote. try again


but, let's talk about the merits. do you think it should be legal to drive while intoxicated?

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 7:10 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2011 7:09:04 PM

Yes, I do, as do most people. <.08 BAC is still intoxicated.

Quote :

"Do we offer those people a chance to prove their [drunk] driving ability? Or do we simple convict them, as though they were really endangering others?"

He was posting a hypothetical. Replace "do" with "should" if you don't understand. Your counterargument was: it doesn't matter, because it's against the law. The law is what we are debating. You can't use the law as an argument.

1/8/2011 7:13:59 PM

no, my argument was that the law does NOT take into account if they were actually endangering others. Plenty of laws are this way. Yet we uphold them.

Or, should we allow anyone who fires a weapon into a crowd to prove their marksmanship to show that they weren't actually endangering anyone?

1/8/2011 7:17:12 PM

I usually use blanks, just to be safe.

1/8/2011 7:19:44 PM

Quote :

"Or, should we allow anyone who fires a weapon into a crowd to prove their marksmanship to show that they weren't actually endangering anyone?"

Of course not. Have to draw the line somewhere.

1/8/2011 7:20:31 PM

ok, then. so, likewise, we draw the line at .08 with drunk driving.

1/8/2011 7:29:04 PM

Why? Many people can drive consistently well at .08 and some even higher. It's not the same as shooting a gun into a crowded room. The risk is considerably lower.

1/8/2011 7:31:06 PM

yes, there are those who can. but there are far more who can't. Far, far, far more.

1/8/2011 7:32:48 PM

^
What is your basis for that statement?

1/8/2011 7:51:51 PM

the countless studies done on the topic, maybe? likewise, what is YOUR basis for "many can drive fine at that level"? Keep in mind, that even 1% in a country of 300million classifies as "many"
[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 7:57 PM. Reason : -->

1/8/2011 7:56:28 PM

^^It's just as baseless as the "people with high alcohol tolerances can operate a car at .08 BAC or higher" argument. That's the whole fucking point.

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 7:58 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2011 7:57:08 PM

this is baseless?
http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/safety_info/alcohol/blood_alcohol_concentration.cfm

1/8/2011 8:01:12 PM

^I was agreeing with you, champ. I agree that some people can fire a gun into a crowd without injuring people, but that shouldn't mean we should abolish laws on firing a weapon into a crowd. Likewise, some people can drive while impaired, but that doesn't mean we should abolish drinking and driving laws all together. So, it is "baseless" when viewed through the lens of "personal liberty" that all these libertarians love to crow about.


What I like the most about the comparison is that the libertarians in this thread don't want to acknowledge that firing a weapon into a crowd is an unnecessary risk and yet are so cavalier to champion the rights of driving while impaired. The libertarians on this board are so idealistic that they refuse to accept the need for compromise in order to deal with the real world. They'd rather stick to their principles in the name of personal liberty in exchange for social order.

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 8:16 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2011 8:03:04 PM

^^
So, according to that graph (which is not a study), people are, on average, about 2.5% more likely to cause a crash with a BAC of .08? Doesn't seem very significant to me. Even at .1 it's only a 5% increase. I'd like to see the actual source so I can check out the data range, but it doesn't look like they have one.

Quote :

"What I like the most about the comparison is that the libertarians in this thread don't want to acknowledge that firing a weapon into a crowd is an unnecessary risk and yet are so cavalier to champion the rights of driving while impaired. The libertarians on this board are so idealistic that they refuse to accept the need for compromise in order to deal with the real world. They'd rather stick to their principles in the name of personal liberty in exchange for social order."

Our lives are full of unnecessary risks. Everyone draws their line somewhere. The difference between you and me is that you allow the media/government to draw your line for you rather than coming to your own conclusions.


[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 8:31 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2011 8:24:29 PM

I'm pretty sure that's multiples, not % increase.

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 8:37 PM. Reason : i.e., 5x more likely]

1/8/2011 8:37:03 PM

^^Jesus Fucking Children. You cannot be serious. Sorry, I would have responded sooner, but I was too busy simulating masturbation and rolling my eyes. I already stated that motorists should have access to a breathalyzer in order to make an informed decision before getting behind the wheel. I'll also acknowledge that many people become incapable of driving after a few drinks. What exactly are you arguing for? Raising the BAC level? Fine, go ahead, see if I give half a shit. Or are you arguing that the BAC be dependent on the person? Because that is just as fucking arbitrary as .08 and is highly subjective.

You conveniently ignore the gun argument because you know that you cannot agree that someone should have the liberty to fire a gun into a crowd because it would be a stupid stance to take in the name of political idealism. You've already acknowledged that a line has to be drawn somewhere, but your too weak to draw that line yourself.

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 8:42 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2011 8:41:11 PM

^
What the fuck are you talking about? I already said that the gun scenario is obviously something that should be against the law. The risk in that situation FAR outweighs the risk of driving under the influence. My argument is that being intoxicated is independent of driving recklessly, and an otherwise safe driver should not be arrested and prosecuted purely for having a BAC over .08.

1/8/2011 8:44:58 PM

so, you're still not willing to draw the line?

1/8/2011 8:51:38 PM

The line we are discussing is as gray as the line between a zygote and a human life.

It is somewhere between firing a weapon into a crowded room and driving your car after having 3 beers.

1/8/2011 8:54:43 PM

Quote :

"The difference between you and me is that you allow the media/government to draw your line for you rather than coming to your own conclusions."

You said this. Yet here you are, refusing to "come to your own conclusion." If a line has to be drawn somewhere, it would be beneficial to actually draw it. As far as I know, the 0.08 is the closest thing to a consensus that there is. If any new evidence comes out suggesting that a more efficient way be used to curb drunk driving, then I'll be all ears. But as it stands, you don't really have an argument, but rather a baseless grievance.




V okay, I can somewhat get on board with that. Although I would like to see something a little more concrete if only to prevent the possibility of police abusing their "interpretations" of what qualifies as drunk driving and what does not. but whatever, I'm gonna go get hammered and try to snake a dumb bimbo.

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 9:11 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2011 9:01:40 PM

My point is there isn't a defined line. We shouldn't be arresting people simply for having a BAC over .08. If they have a BAC over .08 and are driving erratically, on the other hand, then you have a case. I will agree that there should be a limit for DUI's, and .08 seems fine, but it shouldn't be the only factor taken into consideration.

1/8/2011 9:07:02 PM

You are not arrested because you have a BAC of 0.08. You are arrested because there is probably cause to believe that your are operating a vehicle while subject to an impairing substance. A chemical analysis is obtained only after the driver has formally been charged. The officer has already formed an opinion that the driver was impaired, now he collects the evidence.

1/9/2011 4:58:49 AM

^ever heard of a dui checkpoint? if you smell like alcohol and refuse a breathalyzer you are going downtown.

[Edited on January 9, 2011 at 7:04 AM. Reason : n]

1/9/2011 6:57:08 AM

I think that we can all agree the real evil here is government-owned roads. If had privately owned roads (the only logical system, obviously), private road owners could decide whether or not to allow drunk driving on their roads and hire private security contractors to enforce those regulations. Citizens could then decide to give their business to roads that do or do not allow drunk driving as their current situation dictates.

1/9/2011 10:49:46 AM

^^If you come through a checkpoint, you still have to show impairment. There is a big difference between an ASTD (the roadside breath test) and the Intox EC/IR II. If PC is found, you are arrested then you go to the Intox. At checkpoints, an LEO is required to administer an ASTD if RS exists; you however are not required to comply.

Again, as I stated before; the courts have created a number happy mentality. You are 0.08 its a slam dunk, anything else is trash (even if you can prove impairment). The ASTD is only used to determine if alcohol is the cause of impairment. However, many LEOs use it as the golden ticket to arrest someone.

1/9/2011 12:36:50 PM

Quote :

"How is this a bad analogy, again? My hypothetical ability to shoot into a crowd without hurting anyone is pretty similar to someone drinking copious amounts of alcohol and not hurting anyone. You're the one arguing that the law is arbitrary. I simply made a comparison to my accuracy with a gun vs your tolerance of alcohol. The analogy is much closer than you're giving credit for. You're just dismissing it because you don't want to get caught with your pants down, because in essence, like every goddamn thread you make, you're simply arguing for personal liberty > public safety. You're so fucking idealist that you are incapable of making a nuanced opinion because you think any concession on your end will somehow weaken your staunch and principled view on all things libertarian."

It's a bad analogy because it's not at all a fair comparison. You just shit up the entire second page of this thread "arguing" that it was, but that doesn't change anything. No one can fire a gun into a crowd safely. You're talking about firing a gun into a fucking crowd versus having 3 beers and driving. This city is full of people that drink more than that every night and drive around, and in the vast majority of cases, they do not cause accidents.

Your problem is with reckless driving, not drunk driving. Keep digging your heels in, though.

Quote :

"Yet we can show that most people can't. Thus the reason for the law."

Okay, I'm glad you at least got to this point. When you make laws, they don't apply to most people. They (are supposed to) apply to all people equally. You make catch all laws like this, and guess what: the guy with a .08 that can operate a vehicle safely goes through a checkpoint and loses his license for a year. That isn't justice, that's wrong, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

Quote :

"Well if you continue to drive erratically after receiving a ticket for reckless endangerment, the officer should arrest you. They usually watch the person drive off in these cases, and follow for a bit (as they should)."

This.

Quote :

"yes, there are those who can. but there are far more who can't. Far, far, far more."

I'd like you to get a lineup of thirty 220 lb males who have been drinking either moderately or heavily for 10 years and have them do a driving test. I can pretty much bet that all of them are capable of operating a vehicle safely at .08.

Here's the reality: people already drink and drive. Your chances of getting caught are very, very low, especially if you are one of these people with a high alcohol tolerance. Unless you happen to go through a checkpoint (which are relatively rare), a safe driver isn't going to get caught, because they aren't going to show any signs of impairment. My problem is when a safe driver is stopped for some other reason and then thrown in jail after a breathalyzer test is administered.

There are no studies that "prove" .08 is the magic number. That's utter, fabricated bullshit being peddled by defenders of the status quo in this thread.

1/9/2011 2:33:16 PM

I'd say you're getting hung up on the details, but whatever. Fine, I won't shoot my gun into a crowd (even though I'm sure somebody out there could do this safely). I'll shoot it on the freeway at 3 in the morning when you and your 30 fat alcoholic friends are driving safely instead. As long as I'm not harming people or property, I should be able to do this, right? Wouldn't that be ideal in your libertarian fantasy world? At worst, I would be assessed a fee for littering should I let my bullet casings lying around on the interstate.

1/9/2011 3:04:39 PM

Still not a fair comparison. Bullets travel long distances and stray bullets can kill people. You don't have complete control in that situation. You can be in complete control of a vehicle while over the legal limit.

1/9/2011 4:08:39 PM

If you're discharging a firearm into the air, it doesn't matter how good of a marksman you are, you don't know the exact trajectory the bullet will take. Unlike a driver that is only moderately intoxicated and still has control over the vehicle, you don't have control of that bullet once it leaves the chamber. If you're shooting the gun in an area where people live or work, you're placing them at unreasonable risk of harm.

We know, for sure, what happens when a stray bullet hits a person or an object. The association between alcohol and driving impairment is much, much weaker, especially at or around the current legal limit.

1/9/2011 4:12:39 PM

Quote :

"You can be in complete control of a vehicle while over the legal limit."

Can you? Surely it must impair you somewhat, so how are we to know if the accident would have happened had you drank one less beer? It's the exact same as stray bullet, there are many factors and you are putting others unnecessarily in harm's way.

1/9/2011 4:17:10 PM

^^Still getting hung up on the details, I see. The idea was and still is relevant. And quite frankly, I'm appalled that you would be willing to deny me my basic liberty to fire my weapon when and where I choose.

Quote :

"you don't have control of that bullet once it leaves the chamber"

A person probably has more control over the path of a bullet than someone who's been drinking has over a car, so this is a pretty stupid argument to make anyways. I mean, when did bullets start behaving more erratically than drunk drivers?

[Edited on January 9, 2011 at 4:49 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2011 4:34:49 PM

What about if I drive my car into a crowd of people? Pretend I'm Dale Earnhardt and I have excellent control of my car.

[Edited on January 9, 2011 at 4:39 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2011 4:39:19 PM

Quote :

"Lawmakers should not attempt to speculate on the factors that could, under certain circumstances, lead to an outcome where rights are violated, and then punish those factors directly"

I finally read your first post. It was everything I thought it would be. Under certain circumstances, a stray bullet could lead to an outcome where rights are violated. But lawmakers shouldn't punish those factors directly based on speculation, right? Or are you ready to admit that we might need to establish some rules in order to prevent assholes from doing asshole things to other asshole people?

1/9/2011 5:07:41 PM

These comparisons are absolutely absurd. For one, you can stop a car. You can not stop a fucking bullet. Bullets can travel very far distances and move extremely fucking fast. Why am I even arguing with this logic?

Do you drive 10 mph over the speed limit? You are putting others at risk unnecessarily.

Do you drive while tired? You are putting others at risk unnecessarily.

Do you bike in an area where people are walking? You are putting others at risk unnecessarily.

What about people who get drunk and play horseshoes at the beach? What if they tripped and flung it into someone's skull? Some people are worse at horseshoes than others, so we should probably ban it for everyone. See how I can jump to the other side of ridiculousness?

God damn, the mere suggestion that someone is capable of driving after 3 beers is met with such rehearsed hostility that any reasonable discussion is out the window. I'm done with this.

1/9/2011 5:08:00 PM

The thread never had a shot to begin with because it was started on the suggestion that the law should be completely abolished. Not altered, not revised. Abolished. That's unreasonable. And it comes as no surprise to people who read these boards and are subjected to his fundamentalist rantings.

^At least you can admit that some boundaries are necessary. the OP, on the other hand, is completely unwilling to find a middle ground that is reasonable. He doesn't want to synthesize both sides of the issue, but would rather stand in a corner and yell "you're doing it wrong, you're doing it wrong" in what I can only suspect to be a high pitched and faggy voice. He never wanted to discuss the issue, he wanted an opportunity to claim that libertarianism is the holy grail once again to the many thousand complex and layered issues facing society. It's fucking stupid, and hella worn out.

[Edited on January 9, 2011 at 5:19 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2011 5:13:18 PM

I also want to point out that 3 beers is not .08. If you drink those 3 beers over the course of 1 hour you'll be at .04 (on average).

If you slam 5 beers over that hour, you'll probably be at or near .08.

[Edited on January 9, 2011 at 5:21 PM. Reason : .,]

1/9/2011 5:20:04 PM

Quote :

"No one can fire a gun into a crowd safely."

And I would argue that no one who is drunk can drive safely in all situations.

Quote :

"You make catch all laws like this, and guess what: the guy with a .08 that can operate a vehicle safely goes through a checkpoint and loses his license for a year."

I really don't have a problem with that. if the dude is cognitive enough to be able to drive, then he is cognitive enough to call a fucking cab. You see, the problem isn't the guy that can drive safely, wherever this magical man is. It's the guys that think they can, but really can't, which is the vast majority of people. So, yes, this catch-all is appropriate, because the average joe can't drive safely at .08, or so the studies say. So, we say .08 is the limit. We draw a fucking line, and call it a day. Do some people get fucked by it? Well, yeah. But driving drunk isn't exactly a right, so please forgive me if I'm not crying a river for the former frat-boys who think they are A-OK to drive.

Quote :

"Bullets travel long distances and stray bullets can kill people."

So can drunk drivers, dumbass.

Quote :

"For one, you can stop a car"

The pedestrian your drunk ass just ran over begs to differ.

1/9/2011 5:24:53 PM

The details are important in this discussion. I think there's part of my argument you're intentionally ignoring.

A car is a dangerous machine. It's big, heavy, made of metal, and can operate at very high speeds. To make things worse, these machines are operated by humans. Humans have a tendency to make bad decisions, become distracted, and generally, err. Those tendencies may be elevated in response to alcohol, drugs, fatigue, girlfriend just dumped you, it's the final 30 seconds of the game, or re-applying make-up. I could continue with that list, but there's no need. When a person gets behind the wheel, they are liable for any damage or harm they cause with that vehicle. Even if they don't do any harm, they'll be held responsible if they are driving recklessly.

I'm not sure why most of you are unwilling to recognize that reckless driving/reckless endangerment law also punishes reckless driving while drunk. As it stands, the people that can be safe drivers while intoxicated rarely get caught, and abolishing drunk driving laws wouldn't make it legal to be an unsafe driver. We should also be at the point where every cop has a car camera, so a jury should easily be able to judge if the car has exhibited reckless behavior. There's simply no need to draw the line "somewhere" (even if it means that some people will get screwed in the process) with something like BAC - there are objective ways for a cop to determine if a driver is reckless.

As much as you would like to believe that I'm advocating lawlessness, it's not so. I want there to be justice. My problem is with the way that we determine who is guilty. Someone that has exhibited no signs of impairment should not be losing their license because they blew a .08, period. That's wrong.

[Edited on January 9, 2011 at 5:28 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2011 5:26:25 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure why most of you are unwilling to recognize that reckless driving/reckless endangerment law also punishes reckless driving while drunk "

And I'm not sure why you don't understand that the BAC part of the law is intended to DETER people from driving drunk. Society, on the whole, says drunk driving is bad. Period. End of story. It doesn't matter if you actually hurt someone when you do it, it's fucking bad. Just like firing a gun into a crowd of people is bad, whether you hurt someone or not. Therefor, society has decided to make it illegal to drive drunk, whether or not you actually hurt someone or had the opportunity to do so. It's really fucking simple, dude.

We have decided that just like firing a gun into a crowd of people, drunk driving is unnecessarily dangerous. Sure, drunk driving is a bit less dangerous than firing a gun at people, but it's still fucking dangerous, so we outlaw it. How fucking hard is that comprehend?

[Edited on January 9, 2011 at 5:33 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2011 5:31:13 PM

Then the legal limit should be .00. We're done here, you're for zero tolerance.

Quote :

"Or, let's put it differently: why do YOU think it is so necessary for people to be able to drive drunk? Where in the Constitution is that right delineated? why is is it SO FUCKING HARD to call a cab or have a DD?"

Dude, really? Please never, ever make any kind of argument from constitutionality on this forum again. Ever. You have as much of an understanding of the Constitution (and its purpose) as Nancy Pelosi.

[Edited on January 9, 2011 at 5:34 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2011 5:33:06 PM

well, the key here is the word "DRUNK", genius. When we have such a word, we have to define it in some measurable way, so we have decided to define it as .08 BAC. Is it a perfect definition? No, of course not. But it's pretty damned good, and it gives you the lee-way to have one beer and not be accused of being drunk

But, let's put it differently: why do YOU think it is so necessary for people to be able to drive drunk? Where in the Constitution is that right delineated? why is is it SO FUCKING HARD to call a cab or have a DD?


^ why don't you answer the question? there are plenty of things that we outlaw that aren't expressly written into the Constitution. Why is drunk driving any different to you?

[Edited on January 9, 2011 at 5:36 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2011 5:35:29 PM

Quote :

"well, the key here is the word "DRUNK", genius. When we have such a word, we have to define it in some measurable way, so we have decided to define it as .08 BAC. Is it a perfect definition? No, of course not. But it's pretty damned good, and it gives you the lee-way to have one beer and not be accused of being drunk"

It's not possible for someone to miss the point this badly. I mean, just read my posts. That's really all I ask. We don't have to measure it by blood content, man. The cop (and jury) can determine if the driver was reckless. An arbitrary cut off is not needed.

Quote :

"^ why don't you answer the question? there are plenty of things that we outlaw that aren't expressly written into the Constitution. Why is drunk driving any different to you?"

Wow. I just...I thought you understand the Constitution, and now it comes out that you don't even have a basic understanding of the founder's intent. You've been parading around as a constitutional conservative all these years and you don't understand that the Constitution establishes a weak federal government, with the tenth amendment giving all power not expressly enumerated in the Constitution to the states or the people. The states determine whether or not to have drunk driving laws; the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Edited on January 9, 2011 at 5:43 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2011 5:39:01 PM

Quote :

"It's not possible for someone to miss the point this badly."

Yes it is, BECAUSE YOU JUST FUCKING DID. What part of "we think drunk driving is bad" did you not understand? What part of "we think drunk driving is bad" did you think ever involved a determination of recklessness? This is why I asked you why you think it is is necessary and should be allowed for people to drive drunk, to which you responded with an ad hominem.

Now, ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION. Why the FUCK do you think people should be able to drive drunk?



Did you really just quote the 9th and 10th? At what point were we talking about this being a states issue? I don't recall that happening. Please tell me you didn't just move the goalposts THAT fucking far, dude

[Edited on January 9, 2011 at 5:46 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2011 5:39:57 PM