Legalize Drunk Driving

reply to post by Schaden


I haven't made up squat. You are the one making up nonsense.

No one on this thread has yet to provide any evidence that DUI laws reduced fatalities cause by Drivers driving under the influence.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


In fraud cases current laws require proof that there was intent to commit fraud, if such a requirement was in place for DUI laws, few would ever be convicted.

The sad fact is that our court system is horribly corrupt, and only exists to make money, and DUIs are a very easy way to make money.

reply to post by Maslo


False analogy?

Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

If I drink and drive, it harms no one.

If I drink and drive, get in an accident, it could harm someone. This is the whole premise behind the question.

Jaywalking could cause the same type of incident that a drunk driver causes. So should you not punish a jaywalker the same?

You and others are talking risk management. Sorry to tell you this, risk management has nothing to do with freedom. So, if the government comes up with an idea that certain types of food are bad for you, are you going to allow them to make that criminal?

They are already beginning their push on that avenue. Cannot have you growing your own food. Cannot have you making your own decisions on anything. Too much risk to the government's revenue stream, which is what all this is about. Do you think the seatbelt laws have anything to do with protecting you? They have to do with protecting the corporate profits of the insurance companies, just as drunk driving laws are all about. Just as 99% of all statutes are about, protecting the profits of companies and the revenue stream of the government.

And the monkeys keep calling for more cold water.

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.

Seriously? You seriously don't understand why drunk driving is criminalized?!?! And you would actually want it to be DECRIMINALIZED?! Thats just wrong to a level I can't even fathom.You're not being criminalized for "the content of our blood"....your being criminalized because you are operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence. You can argue that blood alcohol levels don't 'accurately show your level of impairment' till you are blue in the face...the fact is if you drink alcohol, and then you step into a car, you are taking a risk with other peoples lives! If you are not satisfied with the technology the police use to tell if someone is drunk or not, then....tell ya what....Invent something new! Till then, a breathalyzer is the best test a cop has on the go. Well except for common sense....generally a person is pulled over and given a breathalyzer because a cop thinks the person is driving funny in the first place. Not to mention a cop usually doesnt give a breathalyzer until AFTER he has given them the whole 'say your alphabet backwards, touch your nose with your eyes closed' rig-a-ma-roll....A cop generally has a pretty good impression of whether or not a person is drunk before he ever gives them a breathalyzer. Let me give you an example...I've been pulled over countless times. In fact there was a period of a couple of months where I was pulled over 5 or 6 times because someone kept calling in my license plate as being on a car that was driving recklessly. (I have very few enemies, and because of this I think I know the source of these calls ...a person I let go from a Caregiver position for an elderly relative of mine because I caught them stealing) The point I am getting at here is that here was situation where the cop had every reason to give me a breathalyzer each time I was pulled over....yet I never got one. Why because it is usually TOTALLY OBVIOUS to a cop if a person is drunk or not!!! To argue that people are victimized by the police because of breathalyzers is to suggest that cops give them out like candy....not only was I not given one during these false 'reckless driving' allegations...but I have NEVER been given one in my life.... it is no coincedance that I have also NEVER driven while intoxicated. In fact Its generally a rule of mine not to drive at all, if I drink alcohol (its not too hard to do really...of course it DOES take a modicum of forethought! You may find yourself giving the situation an extra 30 or even 40 whole seconds of thought in order to figure out how to pull off such a highly complex set of social variables as is involved in such an endeavour!! LOL! ). Now back to the issue at hand....If you have been given a breathalyzer at some point, then its most likley because you WERE INDEED DRUNK!!!! Believe, me you will not find someone more liberal on drug laws than me. I think 90% of them should be totally legal. With the possible exception, only of really hardcore addictive drugs, like herroine/opiates and maybe coc aine..(.these should be illegal to buy and sell outside of special programs that give it to people, trying to help wean them off IMHO) And yet even with my veiws on most drugs being legal....I would MOST CERTAINLY want someone arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of any drug capable of dulling the senses!! Just as I would want a Surgeon, Airline Pilot, Police Officer, or Kindergarden Teacher to be arrested if they were under the influence of any sense dulling, or mind altering drug while working!

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

False analogy?

Yeah, false analogy. Eating a banana harms noone, drunk driving or jaywalking endangers other people.

Jaywalking could cause the same type of incident that a drunk driver causes. So should you not punish a jaywalker the same?

I dont know about US laws, but jaywalking is punishable in my country, and rightly so. But endangering other people by jaywalking is much lower than by drunk driving, it is mostly the jaywalker that is under threat. Thats why the punishment is lower.

You and others are talking risk management. Sorry to tell you this, risk management has nothing to do with freedom. So, if the government comes up with an idea that certain types of food are bad for you, are you going to allow them to make that criminal?

Endangering other people (without their consent) should be illegal. Endangering yourself is entirely different topic.


NATURAL LAW: Do no harm to others, and do not infringe on their rights to Life, Liberty, Property and Safety.

reply to post by Maslo


Yeah, another that thinks that doing something that could cause harm, is the same as doing harm.

Oh well, the SKY is not red.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Another one who thinks we should wait for the harm to happen, even if we have reasonably high probability of it happening, and are easily able to stop it.

Do you also agree that people should have the right to randomly shoot at a square full of people, and police should act only AFTER someone is hit?

Common sense blinded by extremist ideology.

....

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Maslo

 

Yeah, another that thinks that doing something that could cause harm, is the same as doing harm.

Oh well, the SKY is not red.

Why the same? It is not the same, and the punishment is lower. But yes, doing something that could cause harm is wrong, and should be punished appropiately.

reply to post by Maslo


Well, you could cause harm by just being allowed to live.

Have you not heard that Global Warming and Over population is a boon to Gaia.

I think we should begin an immediate extermination of all those that do not follow that doctrine.

How bout that for your technique of argument.

The sky is still NOT RED!

edit to add, I DO NOT CARE HOW MANY TIMES YOU SAY THE SKY IS RED, it is not.

I will add, I have called for the PUNISHMENT of those that cause HARM.

Be it if they are drunk and driving or if they are texting and driving or eating and driving or reading and driving or putting makeup and driving.

BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Hypocrites want to single out one thing and one thing only.

Whatever.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

Well, you could cause harm by just being allowed to live. Have you not heard that Global Warming and Over population is a boon to Gaia.

Overpopulation is not caused by people living, but by people procreating too quickly and by bad distribution of resources (can be solved by limiting right to irresponsible procreation and better distribution of wealth). Global warming is not caused by people living, but by excessive emissions (can be solved by limiting right to emit CO2 and promoting green energy). No need to kill people - it would not even solve the problems.

Right to life is fundamental, more important than the other two rights (right to liberty and property). That means if lives are at stake (this right come into conflict), we can breach peoples rights to liberty and property, including the liberty to drive drunk. (right to safety = right to life).

Question for you: If someone is pointing a gun at you, are you not allowed to breach even his right to life (not even talking about less important rights for liberty and property) to terminate the increased probability of harm, even if no harm is done YET too? How is this any different from the thread topic?

reply to post by Maslo


Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, you are one of those. Nevermind.

I guess with the advent of the supposed global warming, erm global climate change, erm global disruption erm............................................................................NOT

First Christmas Snowstorm since 1887

Or hell, what about the German Global Warming scientists that cannot get there story straight, is it going to be warmer or is it going to be cooler.

Hey, once and awhile you need to use your very own power of observation!

yes legalize drink driving that sounds like an awesome idea to me......my god are people this illogical as to what they say next you will be saying legalize pedophelia its all good their not going to know the content of your penis unless the dna check it???.....

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


This is offtopic. If you want to debate the validity of AGW, I reccomend you joining one of many threads here on ATS dealing with the topic. Try for example this one .

Unlike AGW, which is a complicated phenomenon and many people fall for denier propaganda if they dont study the topic thoroughly and from unbiased sources, no rational person would say that driving while drunk does not significantly increase the probability of harm. Harmfullness of drunk driving is widely accepted even in general population. So again, false analogy.

reply to post by Maslo


How about you join THIS ONE-ATS Label all Global Warming threads as Hoax

As for the discussion, until someone causes HARM, they have not committed a crime, unless of course you are going to call for all politicians to be imprisoned for their complicit behavior to destroy the economy of the world.

Of COURSE NOT, not in the IDIOCRACY of the enslaved.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


You have not answered my questions:

Do you also agree that people should have the right to randomly shoot at a square full of other people, and police should act only AFTER someone is hit?

If someone is pointing a gun at you or someone else, are you not allowed to breach even his right to life (not even talking about less important rights for liberty and property) to terminate the increased probability of harm, even if no harm is done YET too? How is this any different from the thread topic?

If you believe the harm must be already done for the law to step in, you must agree that the above scenarios are perfectly OK and should be tolerated, until someone is killed. Otherwise you are inconsistent in your logic.

To the OP:

Wow, just wow... You obviously never were a victim or knew any victims of a drunk driver.

I bet if a drunk driver almost hit you, you'd still be ok with drinking and driving, you know, he didn't hit you or anything, so us cops would still be wrong for preventing and not actually stopping a crime...

Stupidity at its best...

Magnum

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


"As for the discussion, until someone causes HARM, they have not committed a crime, unless of course you are going to call for all politicians to be imprisoned for their complicit behavior to destroy the economy of the world."

Driving under influence is like running madly with a gun while pointing at potential victims. It is a crime as is driving drunk. When a man can be potentially more dangerous to the community and there's a higher probability he will do a crime (in comparison to usual human behavior) then the community has rights to stop such a person if it is possible BEFORE THE CRIME HAPPENS.

And btw - You anarchists are nuts. Including OP.