You need to settle down. Certain individuals can demonstrate an ability to drive safely at the legal limit - enough to be substantial. That's why I think it should be legal. Did you even read my first post in its entirety, or had you jumped to a conclusion before you even entered the thread?

Quote :

"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"

I'm not the one that brought up the Constitution. You did, and it was totally irrelevant to the discussion.

[Edited on January 9, 2011 at 5:50 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2011 5:45:27 PM

yes, I read the first post. nowhere did you talk about how this should be a states issue. Instead, you said that BAC is not a fair measure and should be ignored.

And, I'll say it again: some people can fire a bullet into a crowd of people and consistently not hit anyone. Why don't we just allow everyone to do that?

OK, some people can safely drive at .08. Can the vast majority? No? OK, then why should it be legal at that number, then? At what percentage of people who can't drive safely should we outlaw it? 75? 60? 90? What's the magic number for you? If Paul Bunyan, alone, can drive safely at .2 BAC, should we make that the new magic number? Or, is just more prudent, in the interest of deterring drunk driving on the whole, to define a lower number at which most people are affected?

And, you STILL haven't answered why people should be allowed to drive while drunk. That some can safely do it at is not answer.

^ you may not have initially brought up the Constitution, but you DID bring up the 9th and 10th. Nice attempt at backtracking, though. I briefly referenced the Constitution, in an attempt to say "what right is being violated", and you then replied with an ad hominem. I pointed that out, and you then referenced the 9th and 10th. Now you are hiding behind "I didn't bring up the Constitution." So, what is your point again? Will you PLEASE answer the question as to why people should be allowed to drive while drunk

[Edited on January 9, 2011 at 5:58 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2011 5:53:31 PM

Quote :

"The cop (and jury) can determine if the driver was reckless. An arbitrary cut off is not needed."

That's not really true, though. I could stumble out of a bar completely shitfaced and slobbering on myself, and I have no doubt that I could easily back my car out of its parking spot, negotiate my way out of the parking lot, and start heading down the road. I could get pulled over and arrested for DUI right there, before getting about 15 mph or really doing anything "reckless." That doesn't mean I'd have any business whatsoever driving.


Also, you mentioned my attitude towards speeding. I would argue that our attitudes towards driving (in terms of what constitutes "too fast" or "too aggressive" is ridiculously conservative compared to, well, pretty much any of the 15 or so other countries I've been to (although as far as I know, no developed, Western, modern societies are more lenient than we are when it comes to drunk driving.) So, yeah, I think that we should ease up a good bit on that stuff.

Another part of it is that, yeah, I think I'm a way above average driver, and certainly drive an extraordinarily more capable than average car...I can safely drive at speeds and in a manner than your average highschool girl, in her Camry, at night, in the rain, has absolutely no business even attempting. I'd love to see a tiered licensing system adopted, but in the meantime, I understand that the system isn't up to accommodating that. I don't, for the most part, complain about the unjustness of the law when I get a ticket--I pretty much just chalk it up as another cost associated with driving how I want to. (I will also note that a tiered approach to DUI is not quite as sensible--nobody should aspire to being a functioning alcoholic in the way that learning to be a better driver is a good thing.)

Finally, DUI laws are legitimately about public safety. They are misguided and fucked-up, at times (i.e., being able to be arrested DUI for responsibly sleeping it off in your car instead of driving anywhere), but imperfect as they are, they are written with the best of intentions. Our approach to speeding laws, though, while not totally divorced from safety, has a helluva lot to do with revenue generation...



and on that note, do you think someone driving a Miata should be allowed to park further from the curb than someone driving a Suburban? I mean, it only makes sense. You could park the Miata 3' from the curb and get a parking ticket, and still be protruding into traffic less than a legally parked Suburban. At the same time, just park the fucking Miata like you're supposed to and don't worry about it. Same thing with driving drunk--even though you can slam a 6-pack and drive home OK (which is much more dubious and hard to quantify than how far the Miata is from the curb, I might add, and with far higher stakes for being wrong), it isn't too much to ask for him to just have a gameplan for drinking and getting a ride home, or if everything goes to hell, to take a cab. This is a requisite sacrifice that we make for having a civilized society. ALL of the alternatives have higher costs.

1/9/2011 10:04:37 PM

Quote :

"you're some sort of mix between neo-conservative and constitutional conservative, but I'd be hesitant to call you a libertarian"

Well, I'm definitely not neo-conservative in any sense other than that I'm pretty pro-military (although nowhere near as interventionist as those jackoffs are). Neocons, with their insane spending and hamfisted foreign policy, are the biggest reason that I've abandoned the GOP to a large extent (with social conservatives coming in 2nd).

A constitutional conservative? That's subtly different from, but pretty much effectively makes you, a libertarian.

Now, above all else, I am a sensible pragmatist. That doesn't mean that I never take a strong stand or deviate from the center...it means that I'm mostly concerned with doing what makes sense and accomplishes the best solution, and that I don't slavishly follow ideology. It just happens that I think this is mostly accomplished by maximizing freedom, which I believe to be the primary role of government (which makes me a libertarian), and that the U.S. Constitution is a pretty good (though outdated due to many years of neglect) framework for keeping the government on the right path (which makes me a "constitutional conservative.")

1/9/2011 10:22:48 PM

point order, that wasn't an ad hominem.

As to this this, I would like the people who argue against drunk driving laws to quantify what "many" means in relation to many people can drive drunk safely.

On to another point, if drunk driving laws were revoked and removed from the books, under what laws would your punish someone who causes an accident while under the influence of alcohol?

1/9/2011 10:54:30 PM