I can only suspect that this topic has been done to this death on these boards, if not before my time, but I think it’s worth revisiting and discussing, as I’m certain that many of us have either personally been victims of the system (I have not), or we know individuals that have been. What I’m speaking of is overly harsh punishments afforded to those that have failed to meet the state’s arbitrary standard for how much alcohol can be in your system while driving.

Many of you have already bought into the state’s propaganda. The mantra has been, for the duration of my lifetime, “don’t drink and drive.” The dangers of drinking and driving are perceived to be so severe that invasions of privacy (both through the breathalyzer test and traffic checkpoints) are justified. Indeed, we all have known or at least heard of individuals that were way too drunk, got behind the wheel, and either caused property damage, bodily harm to pedestrians/motorists, or came close to doing either. I’ll go ahead and preemptively dispel the notion that, in a (frequently caricatured) libertarian society, reckless behavior like that would be tolerated.

I won’t mince words, though. There should be no laws against drinking and driving. That may come as a shock to many, as it challenges their fundamental beliefs about justice and what the purpose of the law should be. 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. If that’s the purpose of law, we should be actively pursuing and punishing those that don’t get enough sleep, are too busy singing along to their favorite song in the car, are daydreaming, or don’t meet a certain judgment/intelligence standard, as determined by the state.

Clearly, adopting such policies would yield an incredibly faulty and subjective justice system. There are tens of thousands of behaviors that we could attempt to prosecute due to their potentially negative consequences. We have to use more objective methods to determine what should be a crime, starting with an understanding of natural rights and the non-aggression principle. For behavior to be considered a crime, we must establish that either an individual’s rights have been violated, or that there was an unreasonable risk of harm to the individual’s person or property.

So, if there aren’t drunk driving laws, how do we deal with the obvious problems caused by drunk drivers? The same way we should deal with any crime. If a drunk driver knocks down a mailbox, he is liable for the mailbox. If he hits and kills a person, he’s charged with murder. The fact that he had a .10 BAC when the crime happened is irrelevant; the driver was negligent. If the driver is swerving around or crossing yellow lines, that’s reckless driving.

I expect at least one person to launch the utilitarian/pragmatic objection, which is essentially that drunk driving laws, even if not always fair, result in enough of a reduction in death/injuries/damage to be worth having. That may be the case, but if that’s the justification for our current set of laws, we could just as easily justify the total prohibition of alcohol, vehicles, or both.

Even if you disagree with that line of reasoning, I would advise re-evaluating law enforcement’s methods for determining drunkenness. BAC is an unfair measure that simply does not take into account the individual’s ability to handle alcohol. Any seasoned drinker can operate a vehicle safely with a .08 BAC. We should all know this. It’s easy to throw your hands up and say, “Hey, gotta draw the line somewhere.” If that’s true, let’s draw the line somewhere that doesn’t take licenses away from safe drivers that happened to go through the wrong checkpoint or had a busted brake light.

1/8/2011 11:51:30 AM

what about laws about wearing a blindfold while driving?

Quote :

" I expect at least one person to launch the utilitarian/pragmatic objection, which is essentially that drunk driving laws, even if not always fair, result in enough of a reduction in death/injuries/damage to be worth having. That may be the case, but if that’s the justification for our current set of laws, we could just as easily justify the total prohibition of alcohol, vehicles, or both."

what part of pragmatism don't you understand? pragmatism doesn't typically involve going off the deep end.

but anyhow, i think a real problem is that the laws are often too strict or enforce the wrong things. this leads to cops and judges enforcing the law inconsistently. this ultimately leads to abuses.

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 12:00 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2011 11:58:52 AM

Wearing a blindfold while driving is placing other drivers and pedestrians in unreasonable risk of harm, as the driver will be completely unable to navigate the roads or respond to traffic events. I suspect, though, that a blindfolded driver would not get pulled over for wearing a blindfold, as they would likely crash into an object or run off the road in a very short period of time.

Quote :

"what part of pragmatism don't you understand? pragmatism doesn't typically involve going off the deep end."

To quote Wikipedia:

Quote :

"Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if and only if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that impractical ideas are to be rejected."

A pragmatist would likely look at the proposition of repealing drunk driving laws and conclude that doing so would be impractical, on the grounds that a substantially greater number of people would drink and drive, resulting in a greater number of fatalities/injuries. That was my point, and I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about.

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 12:16 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2011 12:15:11 PM

As it turns out the number isn't arbitrary at all. There have been many studies showing that there is a threshold at which driving ability and reaction times drop severely, and as it turns out, that number .is right around .08.

If you fire a gun into a crowd, you are attempting murder. If you release a deadly bacteria into a city's water supply, you are attempting murder. And if you get behind the wheel of a car drunk (which, through studies, has been defined by a certain BAC), then through your negligence, you are attempting murder.

I'm not going to discuss this anymore, because obviously from reading your post your logic is akin to the average 5th grader. Take care though, and have fun reveling in the fact that this law will never get changed, and will probably only get stricter in the future.

1/8/2011 12:24:14 PM

^^you said that the pragmatic argument could easily lead to the prohibition of driving or drinking themselves

1/8/2011 1:23:44 PM

Quote :

"Wearing a blindfold while driving is placing other drivers and pedestrians in unreasonable risk of harm, as the driver will be completely unable to navigate the roads or respond to traffic events."

one might make the same argument for someone who is drunk behind the wheel.

1/8/2011 1:38:35 PM

Quote :

"As it turns out the number isn't arbitrary at all. There have been many studies showing that there is a threshold at which driving ability and reaction times drop severely, and as it turns out, that number .is right around .08."

No. You don't understand how alcohol tolerance works. Please go to Wikipedia or Google and come back when you're educated on the subject.

Quote :

"If you fire a gun into a crowd, you are attempting murder. If you release a deadly bacteria into a city's water supply, you are attempting murder. And if you get behind the wheel of a car drunk (which, through studies, has been defined by a certain BAC), then through your negligence, you are attempting murder."

I would compare driving recklessly to firing a gun into a crowd, so I'll agree with you there. Here's the problem: many people can consistently demonstrate an ability to drive safely while above the legal limit. You can either acknowledge this, or you can bury your head in the sand.

Quote :

"I'm not going to discuss this anymore, because obviously from reading your post your logic is akin to the average 5th grader. Take care though, and have fun reveling in the fact that this law will never get changed, and will probably only get stricter in the future."

You're not going to discuss this anymore because you don't have a leg to stand on in this debate. Every injustice codified into law has had ardent defenders just like you. Eventually, those that recognize the human consequences of said laws cannot, with a clean conscience, remain silent for the sake of adhering to conventional wisdom. There's a lot of laws that seem like they're here to stay, but that says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of those laws.

Quote :

"you said that the pragmatic argument could easily lead to the prohibition of driving or drinking themselves"

It could, which is why pragmatism is a useless philosophy, and easily rolled in with utilitarianism - both are big words for "the ends justify the means."

Quote :

"one might make the same argument for someone who is drunk behind the wheel."

We can demonstrate that heavy drinkers with advanced alcohol tolerance can safely operate a vehicle when above the legal limit, so that argument can be thrown out.

1/8/2011 1:57:33 PM

Quote :

"There should be no laws against drinking and driving"

I tend to agree.

Quote :

"BAC is an unfair measure that simply does not take into account the individual’s ability to handle alcohol."

This.

Quote :

"I'm not going to discuss this anymore..."

That's fine.
We all know that authoritarian pussies like yourself are to feeble minded to understand logic, anyway...

1/8/2011 2:09:31 PM

Drunk driving laws are an assault on personal freedom. The "Don't drink and drive" message is so ingrained into the public's mind that people like FeebleMinded consider drunk driving to be attempted murder, whereas before MADD was formed, drinking and driving was commonplace. Studies have shown that talking on your cell phone is just as dangerous, if not more so, than being intoxicated, yet you see this every day, all day.

1/8/2011 2:33:12 PM

Quote :

"to too"

1/8/2011 2:45:01 PM

Quote :

"Studies have shown that talking on your cell phone is just as dangerous, if not more so, than being intoxicated, yet you see this every day, all day."

1/8/2011 2:54:56 PM

This is fucking stupid and a part of your larger view of "anything and everything involving government is bad."

If you take away all laws you're going to have a breakdown in society. This is something they realized 4000 years ago, yet which you cannot seem to wrap your mind around.

1/8/2011 3:56:47 PM

I can't even put into words how dumb your post is. It's a straw man, intellectual laziness, and lack of reading comprehension, all rolled in together. Congratulations, sir.

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 4:01 PM. Reason : Who the fuck is they?]

1/8/2011 3:59:53 PM

Let's see... fucking Babylonia?

How can you possibly argue against removing drunk driving laws when so many people are killed by drunk drivers every year? Drunk driving has a high causation of infringing on other peoples' freedom and this law is designed to prevent that. Are you fucking stupid?

1/8/2011 4:10:07 PM

I should be able to fire my gun into a large crowd without consequence. Sure, someone not as skilled with a firearm as myself would likely hurt or kill someone, but my tolerance accuracy is much higher than that of the average shooter, and I can guarantee that I would not injure a single person. This is my right. Grant me this liberty.

1/8/2011 4:15:10 PM

I view myself as a moderate, pragmatic libertarian. I think the premise of this thread and anyone who agrees with it is fucking retarded.

Crazy ass views like this are why people like me are not part of the Libertarian Party, and why you don't get a goddamn thing that you want accomplished, instead of at least getting a good bit of it. Of course, that's a pragmatic stance, which you not only can't bring yourself to embrace, but actively demonize. Nice work getting us all cornholed by the Dems and GOP.


I will say that groups like MADD are responsible for some stupid bullshit, and drunk driving is in no way attempted murder. There's a reason the charge of manslaughter exists.

1/8/2011 4:16:18 PM

Jesus H. Christ!



^
Your thoughts on BAC?

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 4:17 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2011 4:16:39 PM

Quote :

"Drunk driving laws are an assault on personal freedom. The "Don't drink and drive" message is so ingrained into the public's mind that people like FeebleMinded consider drunk driving to be attempted murder, whereas before MADD was formed, drinking and driving was commonplace. Studies have shown that talking on your cell phone is just as dangerous, if not more so, than being intoxicated, yet you see this every day, all day."

Yeah no shit

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

1/8/2011 4:17:10 PM

Quote :

"Jesus H. Christ!"

HERP DERP!

1/8/2011 4:17:30 PM

Jesus Herpderp Christ!

1/8/2011 4:18:08 PM

Quote :

"I view myself as a moderate, pragmatic libertarian. I think the premise of this thread and anyone who agrees with it is fucking retarded."

Giving this a proper response would most certainly get me suspended permanently from the Wolf Web.

1/8/2011 4:18:20 PM

The funny thing is, is that I would agree that drunk driving laws are worthy of review. In fact, I actually believe that every motorist should have access to a breathalyzer before getting behind the wheel. 0.08 is such a precise measurement, yet the average motorist has no real way of judging whether or not he or she is approaching that limit. But the notion that drunk driving laws should be completely abolished in the name of personal liberty is some intellectual masturbation.

1/8/2011 4:20:04 PM

Quote :

"http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html"

/thread. STFU.

1/8/2011 4:20:20 PM

Quote :

"Giving this a proper response would most certainly get me suspended permanently from the Wolf Web."

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 4:25 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2011 4:24:06 PM

Quote :

"Yeah no shit http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html"

Your point? Cars become safer each year. Could that not also be the reason for the rate declining?

Also, these statistics are for ANY amount of alcohol, from .01 and up, and it doesn't matter if it is the driver who is inebriated, or a passenger, or anyone else involved in the accident.

Quote :

"*According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), "A motor vehicle crash is considered to be alcohol-related if at least one driver or non-occupant (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash is determined to have had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 gram per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatality that occurs in an alcohol-related crash is considered an alcohol-related fatality. The term 'alcohol-related' does not indicate that a crash or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol.""

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 4:26 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2011 4:25:50 PM

Quote :

"The dangers of drinking and driving are perceived to be so severe that invasions of privacy (both through the breathalyzer test and traffic checkpoints) are justified."

Invasions of privacy? YOU'RE ON A PUBLIC ROAD! If you don't want cops knowing what your blood alcohol content is, stay the fuck out of the public domain or stay the fuck out from behind the wheel.

A cop pulls up behind you and notes you are weaving, driving 5 mph below the speed limit, and just otherwise driving erratically. Who course of action would you like him to take, wait there for however long it takes you to have someone pick you up and you abandon your car? Force you to pull over and wait there all night to make sure you don't drive again?

I can't think of any reasonable solution that doesn't invade your sacred privacy yet keeps you from killing someone that doesn't also cost the taxpayers (of which roads you are using) a shit ton of money.

Quote :

"If he hits and kills a person, he’s charged with murder. The fact that he had a .10 BAC when the crime happened is irrelevant; the driver was negligent. "

Well, it certainly depends on how this 'crime' was committed. If he hit a person at night outside of a crosswalk, with no DD law then I don't see how he is negligent. This is just an accident because as you're trying to establish, we don't actually know that his reaction time was delayed due to being drunk. We actually don't even know what his BAC was because we didn't invade his privacy to find out. If he was in a stupor, then an officer on the scene could note this for the trial, but thats the best we'd have. And in this case, there is a good possibility this drunk walks scot free, to kill again.

Quote :

"If that’s true, let’s draw the line somewhere that doesn’t take licenses away from safe drivers that happened to go through the wrong checkpoint or had a busted brake light"

Folks driving at .08 are safe drivers? News to me!

1/8/2011 4:31:02 PM

Quote :

"I should be able to fire my gun into a large crowd without consequence. Sure, someone not as skilled with a firearm as myself would likely hurt or kill someone, but my tolerance accuracy is much higher than that of the average shooter, and I can guarantee that I would not injure a single person. This is my right. Grant me this liberty."

Unfortunately, this is a more compelling argument than d357r0y3r. At least gun ownership is mentioned in the Constitution. I don't see anything about the right to drive.

The way I understand it, is that getting your license entails an agreement between you and the State, and part of that agreement is that you will follow the rules, including speed limits, intoxication levels, car/emission standards, ect. Otherwise, you can face a penalty. If you don't feel like you can hold up your end of the agreement, don't get your license. There's no guarantee to drive a car.

1/8/2011 4:37:05 PM

Quote :

"Your point? Cars become safer each year. Could that not also be the reason for the rate declining?"

I don't see how, cars do get safer every year buy why would that reduce the rate of alcohol related deaths compared to overall deaths?

Quote :

"Also, these statistics are for ANY amount of alcohol, from .01 and up, and it doesn't matter if it is the driver who is inebriated, or a passenger, or anyone else involved in the accident."

It says explicitly that passengers aren't counted, only people who contributed to the accident.

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 4:38 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2011 4:37:30 PM

Quote :

"A cop pulls up behind you and notes you are weaving, driving 5 mph below the speed limit, and just otherwise driving erratically"

Well, that's a crime by itself. It matters not if the reason is drinking, being tired, being distracted, etc.

The main point is that BAC-based enforcement is bullshit. If even one person can safely drive (by any measure,) while "over the limit", then BAC is nothing but crap. There are plenty of drivers that drive in a manner that constitutes an unreasonable risk of danger when slightly under the limit, and there are plenty of drivers that drive in a manner that doesn't constitutes an unreasonable risk of danger when slightly over the limit. Hence, BAC is bullshit.

Quote :

"Folks driving at .08 are safe drivers? News to me!"

Exactly. You're acting as though all drivers, and indeed, all drinkers are the same. Get a clue.

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 4:53 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2011 4:51:15 PM

Quote :

"Let's see... fucking Babylonia?"

That's not weed you're smoking, it's paint thinner.

Quote :

"How can you possibly argue against removing drunk driving laws when so many people are killed by drunk drivers every year? Drunk driving has a high causation of infringing on other peoples' freedom and this law is designed to prevent that. Are you fucking stupid?"

Try to control yourself for a moment and read my post. Do you support banning alcohol altogether? Do you support banning cars altogether? Both of those things would greatly reduce the number of alcohol and car related deaths.

I've already articulated my position that legislation should not target behavior that leads to crime, but rights violations themselves. Of course, your intention was never to have an argument, your goal was to go off on someone.

Quote :

"I should be able to fire my gun into a large crowd without consequence. Sure, someone not as skilled with a firearm as myself would likely hurt or kill someone, but my tolerance accuracy is much higher than that of the average shooter, and I can guarantee that I would not injure a single person. This is my right. Grant me this liberty."

Cool, so you can demonstrate that you can consistently shoot into a crowd and not hurt anyone? You're just being lazy. This is not a valid analogy.

Quote :

"Crazy ass views like this are why people like me are not part of the Libertarian Party, and why you don't get a goddamn thing that you want accomplished, instead of at least getting a good bit of it. Of course, that's a pragmatic stance, which you not only can't bring yourself to embrace, but actively demonize. Nice work getting us all cornholed by the Dems and GOP. "

I'm not a member of the Libertarian party, and you're some sort of mix between neo-conservative and constitutional conservative, but I'd be hesitant to call you a libertarian

What's hilarious to me is I can recall times in the past where you railed against speed limits, after getting a dozen or more speeding tickets. I'm not going to do a search, but you basically suggested that while many people are not capable of driving safely while at high speeds, you are different. I even thought about talking about speed limits, because it's a very similar. You might be good enough of a driver that you can ignore the speed limit. You're naive if you don't believe there are people that can safely operate a vehicle at .10, or even .15.

Quote :

"Invasions of privacy? YOU'RE ON A PUBLIC ROAD! If you don't want cops knowing what your blood alcohol content is, stay the fuck out of the public domain or stay the fuck out from behind the wheel."

Ah, yes. On a public road that I'm forced to subsidize, in a country that I never agreed to be a citizen of. Somehow, that doesn't bother me. Your argument here is "the law is right because it's the law," and frankly, it's what I've come to expect from you.

Quote :

"A cop pulls up behind you and notes you are weaving, driving 5 mph below the speed limit, and just otherwise driving erratically. Who course of action would you like him to take, wait there for however long it takes you to have someone pick you up and you abandon your car? Force you to pull over and wait there all night to make sure you don't drive again?"

If you're driving recklessly and can't pass a field sobriety test, you should be arrested.

Quote :

"I can't think of any reasonable solution that doesn't invade your sacred privacy yet keeps you from killing someone that doesn't also cost the taxpayers (of which roads you are using) a shit ton of money."

The reasonable solution is that if a cop sees you driving recklessly and you can't pass a field sobriety test, you go to jail. It's not difficult.

Quote :

"Folks driving at .08 are safe drivers? News to me!"

Do you know what .08 feels like? You must be kidding me.

Quote :

"Unfortunately, this is a more compelling argument than d357r0y3r. At least gun ownership is mentioned in the Constitution. I don't see anything about the right to drive."

Already responded to it, but this has nothing to do with the Constitution.

1/8/2011 4:54:02 PM

Quote :

"Well, that's a crime by itself. It matters not if the reason is drinking, being tired, being distracted, etc. "

It isn't a crime, it's a traffic infraction, and given a decent explanation to the cop, you likely get to drive away with barely a warning Sorry sir, a bee was attacking me and I was trying to get it out of the car.

Quote :

"and there are plenty of drivers that drive in a manners that doesn't constitutes an unreasonable risk of danger when slightly over the limit. "

Simply false. You might be able to stay in your lane and react with reasonable quickness to changes in traffic, but your reaction is certainly diminished. Given no law against it, enough folks would drive even more at a BAC slightly above the limit and they'd eventually get into a situation where their reaction time simply isn't quick enough.

1/8/2011 4:56:00 PM

Quote :

"It isn't a crime, it's a traffic infraction"

No, dude. Weaving, driving erratically, etc. is a crime. (...pretty sad that a libertarian had to remind you of this.)

1/8/2011 5:05:37 PM

Quote :

"Cool, so you can demonstrate that you can consistently shoot into a crowd and not hurt anyone? You're just being lazy. This is not a valid analogy."

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.

1/8/2011 5:24:17 PM

There are lots of drivers w/ BAC's over 0.08 who can hold a normal conversation, go to work, or do geometry homework but cannot succesfully complete divided attention tasks (driving).

The magic number is 0.08; this is a double edged sword as >0.08 is pretty much a slam dunk in court but a person who might have showed a greater level of impairment but is <0.08 is a longshot.

1/8/2011 5:25:53 PM

Quote :

"I don't see how, cars do get safer every year buy why would that reduce the rate of alcohol related deaths compared to overall deaths?"

Well making something illegal tends to reduce it's occurrence. We could also ban talking on your cell phone (which, as I stated earlier, has been shown to increase risk as much as driving under the influence), or listening to radio shows, or driving with obnoxious children and reduce accident rates as well.

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 5:28 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2011 5:28:08 PM

Quote :

"The analogy is much closer than you're giving credit for. "

lol, no it's not.


[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 5:32 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2011 5:29:31 PM

Quote :

" No, dude. Weaving, driving erratically, etc. is a crime. (...pretty sad that a libertarian had to remind you of this.) "

A traffic infraction is not a crime you dumb shit.

1/8/2011 5:30:06 PM

^^^ Yes, and all of those things are ACTUALLY unreasonable. That's what everyone here is arguing. We get exactly where you're coming from and we vehemently disagree with you. See, we actually use our brains to make objective decisions whereas you like to blindly apply your ideology in places it doesn't belong.

^^ Then please explain to me in detail how it is different. Because that has yet to be done.

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 5:34 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2011 5:33:11 PM

^^
Yeah it is.
I don't limit my logical and philosophical distinctions to the weakness of language.
Crossing the center line, driving with lights off at night, etc.... These are crimes, dude. Crimes.
An infraction is (or should be) no different from a crime.
Either your actions do or don't constitute an unreasonable harm or risk of harm to others' person, property, liberty, or right to the same.

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 5:36 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2011 5:36:14 PM

Quote :

" If you're driving recklessly and can't pass a field sobriety test, you should be arrested."

if there is no law against drunk driving, what would they be arrested for? is crossing the yellow line now an arrestable offense? or is your problem simply with the .08 limit being trivial?

1/8/2011 5:36:53 PM

Quote :

" is crossing the yellow line now an arrestable offense? "

It should be.
Well, "arrestable"? That's different. It is certainly a crime, though.

Quote :

"or is your problem simply with the .08 limit being trivial?"

Mostly...

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 5:39 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2011 5:39:13 PM

Quote :

"Well, "arrestable"? That's different."

ok, that is why this comment was posted:

Quote :

"Who course of action would you like him to take, wait there for however long it takes you to have someone pick you up and you abandon your car? Force you to pull over and wait there all night to make sure you don't drive again?""

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.

1/8/2011 5:44:21 PM

And to add to that, a field sobriety test would be 1000x more subjective than a .08 BAC.

1/8/2011 5:45:47 PM

If someone is driving erratically and isn't drunk you just give them a ticket and tell them to stop driving erratically.


If someone is driving erratically and drunk, what do you do? give them a ticket and tell them to stop being so damn drunk on their way home?

1/8/2011 5:49:14 PM

If someone is driving erratically and drunk falling asleep, what do you do? give them a ticket and tell them to stop being so damn drunk tired on their way home?

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 5:58 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2011 5:57:58 PM

many (most?) places don't even use the field sobriety test anymore because of how subjective it is, raleigh won't even if you request it.

1/8/2011 6:00:54 PM

Quote :

"We can demonstrate that heavy drinkers with advanced alcohol tolerance can safely operate a vehicle when above the legal limit, so that argument can be thrown out."

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

1/8/2011 6:01:42 PM

aaronburro, the voice of reason!

1/8/2011 6:02:23 PM

Quote :

"Yes, and all of those things are ACTUALLY unreasonable. That's what everyone here is arguing. We get exactly where you're coming from and we vehemently disagree with you. See, we actually use our brains to make objective decisions whereas you like to blindly apply your ideology in places it doesn't belong."

I disagree with you, therefore I lack the ability to make objective decisions. Okay.

Maybe you should refer to my previous post where I stated cell phones are as dangerous as driving under the influence. How is that unreasonable? It would decrease the number of cell phone-related accidents. Don't Phone and Drive. It's murder.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html

edit: Would like to state that I am not a libertarian. I don't apply any political label to myself. The "ideology" insinuation is a pathetic attempt to discredit my opinion.


[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 6:15 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2011 6:07:46 PM

^^^
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?

(tyranny of the majority.... minority rights.... etc.)

[Edited on January 8, 2011 at 6:11 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2011 6:07:57 PM