The Pathetic Argument for Prohibiting Drunk Driving

as long as we don't hurt anyone else.

It is indisputable that driving while drunk, increases the chances of hurting or killing someone else.

This is personal responsibility to adhere to the Constisution.

Does your neighbor have the freedom to shoot a gun next to you or over your head whenever they want just as long as they don't hit you with a bullet?

That is what I equate to drunk driving. It's like firing a loaded weapon into a crowd.

I don't believe that drinking & driving solely of itself deserves a similar punishment to those criminals who hurt others, but there still must be a punishment.

In addition, I do not believe that a drunk driver who kills someone or damages another persons property is still only a drunk driver. At that point they are also guilty of the other crimes (murder, destruction or property, etc, etc). Someone who kills another while drinking and driving is no longer simply a drunk driver and they deserve appropriate punishment for the additional crime they committed.

It's interesting that some people cannot fathom a free society.
The foreign policy of this country has adopted the preemptive war/strike theory and the domestic policy of each state is run basically on the same "presumption" regarding "crimes".That and it's good for business,state/local revenue that is.
Under this current system you are a criminal that either has or has not committed a crime yet.The local/state/federal overlords will decide your fate.
Oh,and bring money,lots of it.
------------------------------------------
"...we are face to face with the problem whether ours is a government under a written constitution and the laws made pursuant thereto, or whether it is a government by ambitious and usurping men.'" -- F.Pierce

a philosophical argument until you are actually affected by the subject. My father was killed by a drunk driver. The driver left a bar and drove down the freeway and over the lane head on into my father's truck. The pictures are horrible. Not only did I lose my father when I was a little girl but it destroyed my family. What our family has gone through since that incident is terrible. My mother, at 29, with four children to raise, never recovered. She, also, died much sooner than she should have and suffered terrible health problems. None of us lived to reach our full potential and all have had deep seated depression. What happened to the drunk? He didn't spend more than three months in jail and lived out a full life. In the car that he was driving was a woman who was killed in the accident, too. She had three children. Seven children were left orphans because of this drunk.

So, what am I saying? I am saying that anyone who drives drunk is guilty of attempted murder. It is like taking a machine gun out into a crowd and shooting it. Is it illegal to own a gun? Of course not? Even if the guy who shot the machine gun didn't hit anybody, he would still be guilty of attempted murder.

Deciding what is really drunk is another question. But anyone who drives drunk should be taking personal responsibility that their actions could potentially kill someone and deal with the consequences. I don't have any patience with people who make excuses on this issue. There can be a discussion of what constitutes drunk but not on whether it should be illegal to drive drunk.

Healthnut4freedom

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3:5,6

If drunk driving was no longer illegal then we ought to make it legal to fire guns into crowds as well, without looking. It simply does not make sense.

I agree with the notion that the punishment might far exceed the crime when much worse crimes receive less severe punishments.

Turning on your hazard lights would work if the police wouldn't harass you. It only to took a couple of days to figure out a way to prevent many(not all) drunk driving accidents without government. It's impossible to predict which solution would win in a free market, but we would all see great benefits.

I look at driving as a personal responsibility. And that includes the decision to drive while drinking. People can be capable of making these decisions for themselves, if given a chance to. We live in a socitey where responsibilty has been transferred from person to government. The government believe, as many people do, that people are too irresponsible to make good decisions, thus they are made for them by rules and restrictions. But the catch is that, as in any relationship, the less responsibility you are given, the more irresponsible you become. When you raise children, you have to ween responsibilty on them so can learn to make their decisions. Yet, as adults, the goverment will tell us we are too stupid to have our responsibility.

If you drive intoxicated, your judgment is impaired, and you are more likely to drive recklessly. Just as you are if you are sleepy, or sick, or angry, or stressed. And we can't outlaw those. No one reports that an accident was due to the driver having taken too much cough syrup. But still, that's a form of impaired judgment. It has to be the responsibilty of the person to make a judgment call. Then, they will be punished if they do not drive under the rules of the road.

...you wouldn't be able to open a beer bottle with the seatbelt buckle.

Just a joke!

Congressman and Senators, Presidents and cabinet members, police officers and powerful business men all drive drunk and so do their children. The difference between you and them is that they are allowed to go home and sleep it off or are given a ride back to the house while we spend the night in a jail cell. Look at good old Teddy, even killed someone and walked. I guarantee you will suffer more than he did for even the slightest hint of alcohol.

http://digg.com/politics/Chappaquiddick_Facts_and_the_Two_Fa...

"In the capitalist society there is a place and bread for all. Its ability to expand provides sustenance for every worker. Permanent unemployment is not a feature of free capitalism." - Mises - www.mises.org

This has become common to where many here beileve that issues are black and white. Most issues are not even close to black and white and have very complex arguments to explain the proper context.

The problem is in the law itself in the manner it is written not the law itself. the .08 is really the problem. I can drink 3 or 4 beers and not really feel any effects at all. There shouldn't be a driving under the influence it should have stayed DWI which can be determined by a sobriety test easily. It shouldn't be the amount of alcohol but rather ones ability to operate regardless of the amount.

# 2: The argument of you are guilty until proven innocent is not black and white by amy means either. Let's say an officer with a dash cam is behind a driver that is all over the road, driving between both lanes which include oncoming traffic, cutting people off and forcing other drivers to make evasive moves to avoid this driver, then the driver is finally pulled over and takes the breath test and shows a 2.8 alcohol level, Is this driver not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the current law(s)? Should they just let him go with only a ticked and summons to appear in court? I would really like to hear some feed back on this.

www.retakecongress.com

www.retakecongress.com

It should be quite acceptable for one to go to his fave watering-hole,
down a dozen beers, and maybe 5 or 6 tequila shooters,
spark up a few joints,
then jump in his bigass pickup,
drive the wrong way down a crowded highway, if he chooses to do so, while pullin' on a fifth of vodka,
and everything is just fine

… UNTIL THE MOMENT OF IMPACT with the family of 5 law-abiding citizens in their minivan?

Only AFTER he has sent them all to the morgue has he done anything wrong!

Is that what you are saying?

*shaking my head - it hurts!*

dont not harm or kill another human......... if you do eye for an eye is the punishment

For some reason, we're expected to know every law that exists in America & in our state so we don't break it. We're supposed to know this when we're 18. There's no litmus test for them, as in the 10 commandments or rhyme or reason. C.U.R.E.

men. Women handle alcohol much worse than men do. Yes, there is a difference b/t men & women & I don't hold them to the same standards/ expectations. Women become drunk much more easily than men & it wouldn't surprise me if women were getting fed up b/c they had a much more difficult time handling alcohol, got pissed & said THE SAME RULES OUGHT TO APPLY TO MEN. I think alot less of a woman at a bar than I do a man & no, I don't approve of the scantily clad women I see in beer ads, either. When women cry for equal treatment under the law, this is exactly what they receive. I doubt when the blood alcohol content is the same that men/ women act the same, men have a much higher tolerance for it & they unfortunately are being blamed for something women can't handle. Women & men aren't equal, looking at them side by side will tell you that, that men are generally taller, more muscular. THE WORLD CAN'T SURVIVE W/OUT WOMEN & I strongly suggest you don't treat 1 bad or they'll be much less likely to help you. It is inescapable that each 1 of us came from a woman & developed as part of her body.

For some reason, we're expected to know every law that exists in America & in our state so we don't break it. We're supposed to know this when we're 18. There's no litmus test for them, as in the 10 commandments or rhyme or reason. C.U.R.E.

crime. When you don't get into an accident, you become the victim of a victim less crime. The police chief in Alexandria VA just got arrested for drunk driving & he retired -- he got away w/ that b/c police have job security. Anyone else in his position, a non-government employee, could have been terminated, but no, he was allowed to retire. He had 19 yrs. of exemplary service, so what. Under normal circumstances, people get to keep their job b/c of that. Everybody is expected to have that, police get rewarded for it. It is such a shame that drunk driving charges have had an effect on bars & others who serve alcohol, leave it to the police to ruin everything. The police get professional courtesy all the time, which means they get away w/ from their fellow officers, what you & I wouldn't.

Here are some more points:

-I'm sure some drunk drivers drive better than some sober drivers...

-When I drink a little too much, I don't say to myself "gee, I wish I could drive but I'm afraid of getting caught by the police"... I say: "I don't want to drive because I might kill myself".

-People still drive drunk when government makes it "illegal"

- If we had a real free market and no income tax and low taxes, car companies would probably by now sell cars that guarantee no risk of dying in a car crash.

Negligent driving could easily cover the legality, but then it would be hard to run people through the gamut. Each drunk driver is worth thousands to the drunk driving industry. And alcoholism is the only disease you can catch administratively.