Legalize Drunk Driving

J

JakeStratham

New member
Oct 28, 2009
2,641
177
0
Location, Location
This is not a new concept. But it's one worth thinking about, if only to entertain ideas outside the propaganda you've been exposed to throughout your life.


dwi%20dui%20owi%20drunk%20driver%20driving%20apd%20police%20arrest%2002.jpg



Jeffrey Tucker recently posted a short editorial on the issue. As always, he makes good points.

Clearly, this DUI enforcement has been a boon to the police but has it really curbed drunk driving? You might consider staking out your local bar, following how much people drink, and observing how many get in cars after. I’ll just state what most everyone knows but hardly anyone says: drinking and driving is a national sport in the U.S. In the vast, vast majority of cases, no harm is done.
Click to expand...


But you say that drinking is associated with bad driving. Well, enforce the laws against reckless driving. Many more people drink and drive than drive recklessly. Some people drive even more safely after a few drinks, correcting for their delayed responses. We do this all the time, e.g. after a workout, when we are sleepy, when we are angry, whatever. Human beings adapt with rationality.
Click to expand...


Laws against drunk driving have vastly expanded police power and done nothing to stop the practice. The best prevention against unsafe driving from drinking has been provided privately: friends, services offered by bars and restaurants, community interest groups, etc. This is the humane and rational way societies deal with social risks. The police have only messed up this process by adding a coercive element that targets liberty rather than crime.
Click to expand...


We seem to be going in the opposite direction as a society. More laws are passed each year, limiting what we can legally do behind the wheel. In addition, the number of activities prohibited under existing distracted driving laws continues to rise.

One day, we'll be forced to stop talking, eating, and listening to music while driving.
 


The corps run the show, when you have lobbyists putting down millions of dollars down the throats of governors, senators, you can do whatever the fuck you want to make something legal or illegal.
 
Police can't stop you just because they *think* you might be drinking, they have to see some sort of action on your part that gives them probable cause to stop you.

So, if someone has been drinking (even potentially more than the somewhat-arbitrary .08 BAC enforced throughout the US), but is not driving at all erratically, then they aren't going to get stopped anyways, they get home safe and sound, life goes on. If the officer can't clearly specify what they did wrong to get pulled over in the first place (even if they do turn out to be staggering drunk), the case is going to get dismissed by a competent defense attorney anyways. It's sort of a self-correcting situation anyways.

If, however, they do do something that could be reason to pull them over even if they are stone-cold sober (speeding, swerving, crashing, etc), they get pulled over, and then it's determined they are drunk, it's pretty tough for anyone to say they should have been allowed to drink and drive, it didn't affect their driving or present a threat to others, etc. The argument "Oh, I drive that badly sober too" doesn't hold water.

He's right in that, in the vast number of drunk-driving scenarios, nobody does get hurt, but those aren't the ones that are the issue, its the ones that DO cause a threat to others that the DUI laws are aimed at, things that are dangerous or illegal on the roadway anyways whether you are sober or not.
 
Then we must legalize shooting the dumbass that is swerving in and out of my lane because they were too immature to take a cab after a night out.
 
mont7071 said:
Police can't stop you just because they *think* you might be drinking, they have to see some sort of action on your part that gives them probable cause to stop you.
Click to expand...

You mean besides the sobriety checkpoints in 38 states?
 
malloc said:
You mean besides the sobriety checkpoints in 38 states?
Click to expand...


Badly outdated stat, most States, even if its technically on the books still, don't do them anymore even if they say they have the right to. The deterrence factor is not necessarily a bad thing either, if people are worried that they could be out there. For places that do still try to use them, the Constitutional issues (fed, not state) become too much, defense attorneys have a field day with it. in my State, those have been specifically outlawed for 30 years, and were out of favor long before that. Blame MADD for the fact there are any left at all, they are surprisingly powerful lobbyists for crap like that.

"tail light out", while it sucks, is something you can get pulled over for and ticketed stone-cold sober, just like speeding or anything else, not much of a defense for drunk drivers that it shouldn't count against them if it would against a sober driver too.
 
mont7071 said:
Police can't stop you just because they *think* you might be drinking, they have to see some sort of action on your part that gives them probable cause to stop you.

So, if someone has been drinking (even potentially more than the somewhat-arbitrary .08 BAC enforced throughout the US), but is not driving at all erratically, then they aren't going to get stopped anyways, they get home safe and sound, life goes on. If the officer can't clearly specify what they did wrong to get pulled over in the first place (even if they do turn out to be staggering drunk), the case is going to get dismissed by a competent defense attorney anyways. It's sort of a self-correcting situation anyways.

If, however, they do do something that could be reason to pull them over even if they are stone-cold sober (speeding, swerving, crashing, etc), they get pulled over, and then it's determined they are drunk, it's pretty tough for anyone to say they should have been allowed to drink and drive, it didn't affect their driving or present a threat to others, etc. The argument "Oh, I drive that badly sober too" doesn't hold water.

He's right in that, in the vast number of drunk-driving scenarios, nobody does get hurt, but those aren't the ones that are the issue, its the ones that DO cause a threat to others that the DUI laws are aimed at, things that are dangerous or illegal on the roadway anyways whether you are sober or not.
Click to expand...

As others have mentioned in many states DUI checkpoints where they stop every single car to smell your breath/look in your eyes with a bright light that makes your stop thing not quite true. EDIT: I don't know how many states do it. California still did it quite often while I was living there.

Another important aspect is if you drive just fine but something else goes wrong you can be in some serious trouble. I have a friend that was driving above the legal limit and was hit by someone running a red light. All the evidence about the cars showed in was entirely the other persons fault, the traffic camera shows it clear as day. He ended up getting royally screwed though as he had a .10 BAC and the other driver was sober. So not only did he get a DUI both insurance companies were able to use that to pretty much not pay for anything.
 
Good luck selling that to the public. You will never, ever, ever see drunk driving laws legalized, yet decriminalized.

There are thousands and thousands of local, state, federal, and international laws on the books. The average "law abiding" person supposedly commits 3 felonies [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229"]3 felonies[/ame] a day. They could strike all of the alcohol related laws off the books and still find dozens of things to prosecute you for. The whole system is broken.
 
If you were to only penalize reckless driving and not drunk driving, the penalties would have to be more severe for reckless driving. That would give cops even more discretionary power.

Imposing deterrents for the reckless operation of half ton hunks of fast moving metal is not a perfect solution, but it's better than not doing it at all.

I think a far greater issue/trend is car culture. Cars are inherently dangerous and I would rather see an end to all incentives for using them over the alternatives. Nobody worries about drinking and bicycling, drinking and train riding, or drinking and bus riding because they're inherently far safer ways of getting around.
 
mont7071 said:
He's right in that, in the vast number of drunk-driving scenarios, nobody does get hurt, but those aren't the ones that are the issue, its the ones that DO cause a threat to others that the DUI laws are aimed at, things that are dangerous or illegal on the roadway anyways whether you are sober or not.
Click to expand...

Yeah, shit that is emphasised when you are drunk.

Grog doesn't affect decision making, reaction time, or focus? Hah! So some drunk can drive in a straight line when they pass a cop so it's ok?

Coppers can't be everywhere to catch reckless driving so they use methods that most people will follow to prevent the shit they can't catch. Of all the road rules to argue against they choose drink driving...
 
I think that the whole premise falls apart when you consider this question "Clearly, this DUI enforcement has been a boon to the police but has it really curbed drunk driving?" to be answered with a definitive yes.

Where is his proof to the contrary? And when I say proof I mean statistics not anecdotal evidence of sitting outside a bar (duh!).

From what I have read (albeit briefly) it has been shown clearly, statistically speaking, that tougher drink driving laws, and reduction in the blood alcohol limits, result in lower numbers of people who are willing to drink and drive and directly results in a lower number of road accidents and fatalities.

It has also been shown that having alcohol in your blood stream impairs your reaction times, so this guys opinion is again based off a false premise. No one in reality drives better drunk than sober. They may think they do as alcohol has a strong effect on your ability to reason correctly and also a heightened state of self confidence. But undergo a test and you'll see that you definitely cannot drive better drunk than sober.

The real argument here is whether your freedoms to do whatever you want, no matter the risk to others, outweighs societies right to protect itself from your foolish actions.
 
I agree. It should be made legal.

My dad has told me stories about the 70s when he used to get completely wasted, drive a sportscar, and basically have a race from one side of the river thames to the other lol.

I have drunk n driven many times (in other countries) with only minor accidents. That was when I was younger though and more stupid.

Not sure I would now.
 
scum bag said:
make human drivers illegal and lets go with the self-driving cars already
Click to expand...

They don't work yet. Putting that aside, why is adoption of telematics so slow? Perhaps the same reason for resistance towards stricter drink driving limits, despite strong evidence in favour of both..

The people who make the law don't want to drive home from the country club at night doing 30mph the whole way. And they want to enjoy a glass or two of wine with their dinner beforehand.
 
My son is a 22 YOWM, Long hair, and is in the car with 2 guys who both also look like hippies or they are homeless. The car is an OLD Buick. A Black woman pulls up next to them at a stop sign and sees my son grab a drink out of a paper bag. She calls the cops on him, saying he was drinking a driving. Now I want to say this is total racial profiling - she had no idea what was in the bag and his driving was not impaired- and if he were black instead of white Al Sharpton would he there beating the war drum, but black people get away with shit ...

All on video, cop pulls up behind my son at a light, Conor's is turning left and already has his blinker on, he is turning onto a 4 lane road. He navigates the turn perfectly. The cop turns on his lights, my son puts on his right turn signal, pulls up to the curb perfectly, does not hit the curb does not park too far from it and navigates past a large truck while doing this.

Cop comes to the window, Conor has his hands on the steering wheel, then hands him ID, Ins, and registration. They talk for a while. He asks Conor to get out of the car and stand behind the car. You can see Conor walk to the back of the car and he is not staggering or swaying. Cop questions the two other guys for 5 minutes. Conor stands there the whole time motionless, no swaying and he is not holding onto the car.

Second cop shows up and administers a Field Sobriety Test. Conor crushes it, he is a rock climber and can walk a 50 foot slack line backwards so balance is never an issue.

Cop finds an open container in the car (it really was Conor's) Buddy claims ownership for container though (It was a beer).

Go to court, he blows less then the legal limit. BUT they still try and get him for a DUI.
Driving safely
No issue with the Field Sobriety Test
under the legal limit
Did not see him drinking and other occupant claims ownership of open container.

He won but ONLY because he had a new young attorney who was excited to have a case that she could win and went WAY above and beyond anything I have ever seen an attorney do as far as investigation.

Most laws are complete and total BULL SHIT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom