HyperU2
War Child
I pulled the 30 out of my ass without looking, but I was close.
So the passengers don't count as "others" ????
Non fatal injuries to the non-driver don't count ????
Now you're just trolling.
The passengers who willing rode with a drunk? Fuck no.
The passengers who willing rode with a drunk? Fuck no.
Wow...
I'm out.
Wow...
I'm out.
I'm not even trying yet. MADD has me beat by far with lying stats.
My stance against DUI checkpoints is more left leaning than right, tyvm.
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.
What arguments?It's interesting that no-one has actually countered the arguments in the article.
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?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.
They're a pretty unreliable organisation right enough.
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?
Name me one special interest group that is truly "reliable"? It's the nature of the beast.
The NRA?
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?
Not so with MADD.
See, folks are so brainwashed about the "dangers" that it's not even open for discussion.
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.
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.
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.
I do think 18 should be the drinking age...