Legalize drunk driving, driver profiling vs race profiling...wow

[adios]

It's in the state's purveyance to regulate the usage of automobiles. Therefore ipso facto drunk driving laws. There's actually no law forcing you to use a car. You can also drive a car being totally drunk if you want to. Just have to suffer the consequences when you're caught.

With that said some of this seems to have gone way overboard. Reports from where I live are that people have been given breathalizer tests upon leaving a bar without even being in an automobile. This has been justified by the state due to the fact that bars are not supposed to serve intoxicated people. Yeah this stuff can and does go overboard.

[Koss]

[ QUOTE ]

This is far to simplistic a view. We could eliminate child abuse by sterilizing all adults. Obviously at some point preventing a crime isn't worth the "cure".

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding Ding Ding! That's the whole point behind laws like this. If drunk people are allowed to drive without getting ticketed until actually breaking another existing traffic law, then lots more people will die. Therefore a majority of Americans feel that it should be a crime to drive with X amount of alcohol in your blood. If you think that it's worth it to have 20,000 more people die each year so drunks can drive around without fear of being arrested for it, then by all means try and persuade congress to change that law. Let me know how that ones goes.

We as Americans elect the government that "parents" us in a way, so we have say over what they can and cannot do. If all of Congress suddenly decided that speed limits over 35MPH were too dangerous and should be brought down nationwide, what do you think would happen? Next election people would make damn sure to vote for a rep who promises to vote to raise the speed limits back up.

You may want to live in a world where the government can't tell us what to do until someone has either been hurt/killed, but I really don't think you'd like the anarchy this place would become. The right amount of government is the smallest amount in which people actually feel safe. Does anyone feel safer now that poker is banned? I doubt it.

[Coffee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many times does someone point a gun at someone without shooting at them? I mean, police officers do, and criminals(by that, I mean criminals due to other crimes) do, but how often is pointing the gun at someone the only crime involved?

[/ QUOTE ]

At some point it becomes more likely than not that a drunk driver will kill someone (higher BAC, driving in traffic, driving near pedestrians, etc.) --- even as likely that a person holding a gun to your head will pull the trigger with a gun pointed to your head. What is your principled distinction here? Is it really the distinction between a gun being a weapon and a car not (as an aside, I would actually argue against that distinction)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? What point is that? Do we have a definitive answer? You imply a statistical approach to your point, but offer no statistics. You are essentially saying that drunk drivers kill people 100% of the time at some point, and that cars are weapons instead of methods of transportation due to the number of people killed in accidents. So, to be clear: gun = drunk + car?

My distinction is between punishing those who actually get in accidents and cause harm and those that don't...nothing more. I wasn't aware that gun crime has anything to do with drunk driving, but the distinction is the fact that drunk driving can often be the only crime committed by the perpetrator, and the sole reason of his incarceration, whereas gun crime typically precedes other crime. If you want to punish intent after someone is shot...fine...I think intent is plainly evident. But, who points a gun at someone for fun? How often does that happen? How often is that the only infraction?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
You are essentially saying that drunk drivers kill people 100% of the time at some point

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not 100%, but certainly approaching it. Is it that hard to think of such circumstances (extremely drunk, driving in an extremely crowded area.) Your position would be that this shouldn't be a crime.

[ QUOTE ]
and that cars are weapons instead of methods of transportation due to the number of people killed in accidents

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they aren't weapons INSTEAD of transportation. In the right circumstances, they can be both.

[ QUOTE ]
So, to be clear: gun = drunk + car?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty close.

[ QUOTE ]
My distinction is between punishing those who actually get in accidents and cause harm and those that don't...nothing more...If you want to punish intent after someone is shot...fine...I think intent is plainly evident. But, who points a gun at someone for fun? How often does that happen? How often is that the only infraction?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, then we shouldn't punish Intent to commit murder (for example) if a shooter misses the target. After all, nobody has been shot.

A man goes into a bank with a ski mask on and a gun...no reason to arrest yet, he hasn't taken any money. He then sees a cop and runs like hell. The cop shouldn't arrest him, no crime committed, right?

Why does it matter if pointing the gun is the only infraction, shouldn't that be enough? I point a gun at your head. I fully intend to kill you. I pull the trigger and for some unknown reason nothing happens. In your perfect world, why would that be a crime but drunk driving (without actually getting in an accident that hurts someone else) wouldn't?

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't aware that gun crime has anything to do with drunk driving, but the distinction is the fact that drunk driving can often be the only crime committed by the perpetrator, and the sole reason of his incarceration, whereas gun crime typically precedes other crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's your distinction??? I don't even know how to respond to that one.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Personal freedom in my mind isnt really at play here, because as others have pointed out you arent just risking your life when you choose to drive.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Personal freedom in my mind isnt really at play here, because as others have pointed out you arent just risking your life when you choose to drive when drunk.

[/ QUOTE ]

VR- the difference between the two quotes is one of percentage, correct?

[elwoodblues]

Yes, nearly all behavior contains risk. However, the calculation isn't just one of risk. It is a cost/benefit analysis. Of course there is a potential cost to driving, but the benefits FAR outweigh the potential costs. Now, do a risk/reward analysis of driving DRUNK. What is the benefit that would in any way outweigh the increased risk?

[Endymion]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh...are you saying I'm helpless and can't do anything about the way things are? If so, yikes. If not, then what are you saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you get my drift.

As to the greatness of te people of America(or whatever country you want to place in such a phrase), I am merely posing questions, questions that are usually left unanswered. I described few cases of mere misuse of personal freedom which, by your account, makes your people great. It's pretty much the same here in Russia, but the one thing we don't have is an absolute belief in our freedom, much less that that freedom makes us a great nation. I may be way off the topic here, but don't you think that it's not the freedom that makes a man or a nation great, but the way he, she or it uses that very freedom?

Pretty much the same with the drunk driving problem... of all people, it's the driver who excersises his right for freedom by drinking and driving... but hey, if that leads to accidents and crashes, or just scares innocent pedestrians and green drivers on the road, why grant him that sort of freedom anyway? Why not excersise, through means of state law, our own freedom to.. shall I say... reduce the chance of encountering such a driver on the road?

By the way, I'm shocked you know the history behind my screen name. It's actually a rarity.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, nearly all behavior contains risk. However, the calculation isn't just one of risk. It is a cost/benefit analysis. Of course there is a potential cost to driving, but the benefits FAR outweigh the potential costs. Now, do a risk/reward analysis of driving DRUNK. What is the benefit that would in any way outweigh the increased risk?

[/ QUOTE ]

When it comes to freedoms the question that i ask is why do you get to choose for me where the cutoff point is?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
When it comes to freedoms the question that i ask is why do you get to choose for me where the cutoff point is?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get to choose. Our elected officials do. You have as much voice in the matter as I do. If we, as a society, are going to have criminal laws at all someone is going to have to draw the line. Nearly every criminal law can be framed as a Freedom question if you want to...Why don't I have the freedom to shoot my gun at people? Even if I don't hit them, why does someone else get to decide who I can shoot my gun at? Isn't that as much of a freedom question as the drunk driving one?

[Coffee]

[ QUOTE ]
Probably not 100%, but certainly approaching it. Is it that hard to think of such circumstances (extremely drunk, driving in an extremely crowded area.) Your position would be that this shouldn't be a crime.

[/ QUOTE ] Correct...but string him up the moment he hits someone.

[ QUOTE ]
Fine, then we shouldn't punish Intent to commit murder (for example) if a shooter misses the target. After all, nobody has been shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot see a distinction between a guy shooting a gun inaccurately at another human being versus a guy driving home and not breaking any traffic laws? I mean, seriously, what the hell are we talking about? But...to you, car + drunk = gun, so I guess under your definition, then I could see the reasoning.

[ QUOTE ]
A man goes into a bank with a ski mask on and a gun...no reason to arrest yet, he hasn't taken any money. He then sees a cop and runs like hell. The cop shouldn't arrest him, no crime committed, right?

[/ QUOTE ] What if it's Halloween? Carrying a gun isn't a crime, and neither is wearing a ski mask, so where's the infraction? Who got hurt?

[ QUOTE ]
Why does it matter if pointing the gun is the only infraction, shouldn't that be enough? I point a gun at your head. I fully intend to kill you. I pull the trigger and for some unknown reason nothing happens. In your perfect world, why would that be a crime but drunk driving (without actually getting in an accident that hurts someone else) wouldn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh...guns again. Okay...I say we shake hands and agree to disagree, since we are clearly planted on opposite sides of the fence.