The drink driving laws are a form of tyranny

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
toscano said:
So the passengers don't count as "others" ????

Non fatal injuries to the non-driver don't count ????

Now you're just trolling.
Click to expand...

The passengers who willing rode with a drunk? Fuck no. The non fatal injuries to other drivers are part of the 9800, DUI is a tiny fraction of the overall number though. And there are no stats as to whether those are single vehicle crashes which only injured the drunk.
 
BVS said:
Wow...:|

I'm out.
Click to expand...

yup.

It's only a matter of time before the "free will" argument would have been expanded to giving the drunk driver every right to carry an unlicensed loaded semi-automatic weapon.

I'm leaving before it gets to that point.
 
HyperU2 said:
I'm not even trying yet. MADD has me beat by far with lying stats.
Click to expand...

They're a pretty unreliable organisation right enough. Political correctness dictates that they are above criticism. Countering MADD is like being against moms and apple pie.
 
HyperU2 said:
My stance against DUI checkpoints is more left leaning than right, tyvm. :)
Click to expand...

Well, more libertarian than left leaning, I would have thought.

It's interesting that no-one has actually countered the arguments in the article in detail. The idea that someone can be arrested purely on suspicion of drunk driving is certainly profoundly anti-libertarian, and it's amazing that it has become generally accepted.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
Just don't drink (or ingest drugs) and drive is a good personal philosophy to live by. If people took that personal responsibility then we wouldn't need these laws. But people don't, so we do. Not a "tyranny" that I object to, at all. Just don't do it, there's no need to. People can always stay home and drink, take cabs, get rides..all sorts of options there.
Click to expand...

I largely agree with this. The state has been forced to regulate because of people being irresponsible. There is little or no reason to believe that people would suddenly become responsible if the drink driving legislation was done away with. For that reason I personally would not be in favour of repealing the drink driving laws.
 
financeguy said:
It's interesting that no-one has actually countered the arguments in the article.
Click to expand...
What arguments?


financeguy said:
The idea that someone can be arrested purely on suspicion of drunk driving is certainly profoundly anti-libertarian, and it's amazing that it has become generally accepted.
Click to expand...
Well how do you propose they prove it on the spot? And if they let them go just to run someone over 10 minutes later?
 
BVS said:
Well how do you propose they prove it on the spot? And if they let them go just to run someone over 10 minutes later?
Click to expand...

This is a very interesting formulation. Is it generally the case that you would support detention of individuals deemed likely to commit a crime in the future?
 
BVS said:
Name me one special interest group that is truly "reliable"? It's the nature of the beast.

The NRA? :lol:
Click to expand...

As you well know, I am not an NRA supporter. But the NRA isn't above criticism and many criticisms have been levelled at it. Not so with MADD.
 
financeguy said:
This is a very interesting formulation. Is it generally the case that you would support detention of individuals deemed likely to commit a crime in the future?
Click to expand...

Well this is the delima we're faced with, when someone is driving erratically but they refuse the breathalizer what do you do?

If I was a cop, the city, etc you bet I want to cover my ass and take them in for reckless driving at least rather then set a potential immediate danger free. Surely you can't be advocating setting those that can't even stay within the lines free to drive?
 
HyperU2 said:
See, folks are so brainwashed about the "dangers" that it's not even open for discussion.
Click to expand...

I worked in this area (drunk driving legislation) while I was a law student. Did a lot of research, co-wrote submissions to Parliament, co-authored papers, etc.

It's quite possible that some of us are very well informed and think that you're not. :shrug:
 
financeguy said:
As you well know, I am not an NRA supporter. But the NRA isn't above criticism and many criticisms have been levelled at it. Not so with MADD.
Click to expand...

Maybe not where you live, but their reputation has been rather tarnished in Canada (mostly due to issues surrounding allegations of tax improprieties, though).
 
financeguy said:
Well, more libertarian than left leaning, I would have thought.

It's interesting that no-one has actually countered the arguments in the article in detail. The idea that someone can be arrested purely on suspicion of drunk driving is certainly profoundly anti-libertarian, and it's amazing that it has become generally accepted.
Click to expand...

His point had nothing to do with my point, though. He seized upon a blanket statement about the people he agitates and incorrectly applied it to this particular argument. And I'm pretty libertarian myself, but, in this instance I'll put safety and common sense before rigidity.
 
I think .08 is fine.

Re-visiting the legal drinking age in the States might be interesting though. Anitram, any thoughts as a Canadian?
 
anitram said:
I worked in this area (drunk driving legislation) while I was a law student. Did a lot of research, co-wrote submissions to Parliament, co-authored papers, etc.

It's quite possible that some of us are very well informed and think that you're not. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Classic logical fallacy. Argument based on imputed expertise rather than reasoning. Your expertise on the issue does not make your arguments necessarily any more valid than opposing arguments.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Nanny knows best, in other words.)
 
I cannot believe I am commenting, but...

Driving erratically and refusing a breathalyser test is a fairly silly course of action. And, assuming that the 'crime' is driving under the influence, it is not off in the future. It is being committed right there and then, if it can be proved.

And you know, if someone was driving erratically, and behaving erratically, and turned out to be stone sober, I'm not sure I wouldn't still be worried.

It is possible that the drunk driving laws are enforced in more elaborate and enthusiastic ways in the US compared to my own country... different cultures and all that.

Oh and it is 18 in Australia. Good times!
 
Note: in no way do I align with some of the more abolitionist posters who want to demonise any drinking whatsoever of alcohol. That road has been gone down before on this forum and I ain't interested. Drinking in moderation, in a nice comfy chair with a car nowhere in sight, is not criminal. It's rather pleasant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
904
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
Reggie Thee Dog
Are we NOT discussing the Dolby Atmos Mix of Achtung Baby?
Replies
13
Views
1K
count rushmore
count rushmore
Headache in a Suitcase
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Reminder - Forum Downtime for Software Update Begins January 23, 2024.
Replies
0
Views
281
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
Janet H
Forum Downtime - software update 1/23-24
Replies
13
Views
683
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
L
Play Do You Feel Loved, Babyface, Some Days Are Better Than Others, Playboy Petition
Replies
8
Views
740
rosephile
R

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom