It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by baked
reply to post by mnemeth1
There are a lot of things in this country that are illegal that shouldn't be, but proposing that driving while intoxicated should be legal? For lack of a better word, is Rockwell retarded?
In 2008, 37,261 people were killed due to drunk driving. (Source) Plenty of legislation gets passed on just one victim of a crime gaining the attention of the law makers, but I really don't see how DWI can be grouped in with that. Not to mention the burden to the tax payers.
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."
Originally posted by LongSeptember
reply to post by xtcsx
If operating a vehicle, in most states, you are now considered to have already given legal consent to allow a blood or breath test.
This opens the door to "If you are driving, you are considered to have given legal consent to vehicle search."
Which opens the door to "If you live in town, we have a right to search your house."
.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Lew Rockwell slams the criminal State for criminalizing non-crimes.
What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.
What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government’s “Breathalyzer,” there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law.
There is no other crime more damaging to the middle class than that of drunk driving.
The costs incurred for a single DUI are enormous, no matter if you hurt someone by your actions or not. This 2006 article places the total cost of a DUI around 10,000 to 50,000 dollars. That is an enormous amount of money for someone making 50,000 dollars a year to cover. It may take half a decade or more for the average person to recoup the losses incurred.
This article places the number of annual DUIs in the US around 1,396,888. If we assume an average cost of 15,000 per DUI, that would mean the public is forking over 20,953,320,000 dollars a year to lawyers, insurance companies and the State.
Is the public made more safe? Obviously the law does next to nothing to deter drunk driving. Just like drug laws and gun laws, DUI laws are another form of “pre-crime.” They are laws that attempt to prevent actual crime (hurting someone) from occurring.
Punishing someone that hasn’t hurt anyone or damaged anyone else’s property by their actions is wrong.
The State does far more damage to the public through the outlawing of literally harmless actions than it prevents in potential damages and lives lost. We must consider that the money taken from a DUI offender may have been used to purchase medication, healthcare, or any other number of life saving or extending goods or services.
When calculating how effective DUI laws actually are, one must consider ONLY THE MARGINAL DECREASE in drunk driving that occurs by having the law in place – this number is relatively small. Most people who drive drunk think they are OK to drive, thus the law itself does nothing to deter them from driving at the time they make the decision to get behind the wheel.
The public must be treated as adults and be given the adult responsibility to decide on their own if they are capable of driving without hurting themselves or anyone else. The State should not play the role of the nanny looter.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by mnemeth1
Yes. Lets tell people that it's A-Ok to endanger someone elses life..
That's a great idea.
It is not OK to endanger someone else's life.
If they hurt someone, steep penalties should be applied.
However, if they don't hurt anyone, they haven't actually committed a crime.
Originally posted by Reaper2137
so you got a dui and now you really learned your lesson? I don't think so your a good little sheep, who tows the party line.. that is until you get of probation lol.. I really don't see a problem with drinking and driving.. no one important is hurt. furthermore.. when you prove to me that a human is more important than any other animal that gets ran over.. I might change my mind.. until then I think red asphalt was a great movie hella funny
Originally posted by baked
Your right. I had read the statistic wrong. Don't act like i'm trying to further some biased agenda. I merely read the data wrong.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
If we assume an average cost of 15,000 per DUI, that would mean the public is forking over 20,953,320,000 dollars a year to lawyers, insurance companies and the State.
Originally posted by kalisdad
no, because there are laws about assault with a deadly weapon that apply in this situation
regardless of the trigger being pulled, the threat of a firearm being discharged at you is still assault
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by Mathoryn
A buddy of mine had a 7 year old daughter that was literally splattered between a car and his house by some drunken idiot and all he walked away with was a huge headache.
ill make sure to pass this on to him
The DUI laws sound like they did a lot of good.