America - The Official Thread

[Keef]

These rules were invented for a reason. Road safety. Suck it up that they want to test your breath. Not a single part of your privacy is invaded.

It's a victimless crime which to me is no crime at all. If you haven't violated anyone's rights then you haven't done anything wrong. If the roads were owned by a private company then they should be able to have their own private rules but the role of government is to protect rights, not to punish people when they've done nothing wrong.

 

[Dennisch]

It's a victimless crime which to me is no crime at all. If you haven't violated anyone's rights then you haven't done anything wrong. If the roads were owned by a private company then they should be able to have their own private rules but the role of government is to protect rights, not to punish people when they've done nothing wrong.

It's to prevent that some drunk moron hits you, your wife or your kids. Statistics show that drunk people crash more easily and more often. It really isn't rocket science, Keef. It really isn't. If you worry about your rights being violated there are tons of other things to fight against. This fight makes you look like a nutjob. Someone who doesn't understand how dangerous the roads become when drunk driving becomes allowed.

Think a bit harder before spouting this nonsense.

 

[Keef]

I'm sure those who lost loved ones to drunk drivers wouldn't care if the person who killed them was more severely punished as jail time can't bring back the dead.

Utilitarian justice doesn't have any place in a discussion of human rights.

The goal of my system would be to not punish people who have not done anything wrong and punish people who have done something wrong. Simultaneously, the punishments are so harsh that there is actually a reason to keep others from not doing anything wrong.

If drunk drivers never run into anything then they have done nothing wrong. You folks can't seem to wrap your head around that.

It's to prevent that some drunk moron hits you, your wife or your kids. Statistics show that drunk people crash more easily and more often. It really isn't rocket science, Keef. It really isn't. If you worry about your rights being violated there are tons of other things to fight against. This fight makes you look like a nutjob. Someone who doesn't understand how dangerous the roads become when drunk driving becomes allowed.

Think a bit harder before spouting this nonsense.

Statistics show that young people crash more easily and more often. Statistics show old people crash more easily and more often. Statistics show that if you drive you will eventually crash because driving is inherently dangerous as hell.

 

[Dennisch]

If drunk drivers never run into anything then they have done nothing wrong. You folks can't seem to wrap your head around that.

I understand that point. But you seem to fail to understand that the road becomes a lot more dangerous when you're allowed to be driving a car while not being able to see straight. It is just a small thing to accept. Don't drink and drive. Blow that breathalyzer. And carry on.

Statistics show that young people crash more easily and more often. Statistics show old people crash more easily and more often. Statistics show that if you drive you will eventually crash because driving is inherently dangerous as hell.

And with your plan those drivers will be drunk too.

You want road safety to take massive jump backwards because blowing on a breathalyzer somehow invades your privacy. Again. There are plenty of other privacy invading things going on by the governments around the world. This one is just one of those things that actually make your life a bit better and safer.

 

[McLaren]

Utilitarian justice doesn't have any place in a discussion of human rights.

The goal of my system would be to not punish people who have not done anything wrong and punish people who have done something wrong. Simultaneously, the punishments are so harsh that there is actually a reason to keep others from not doing anything wrong.

The punishments now should already deter you from drinking & driving, and that's without killing someone.

If drunk drivers never run into anything then they have done nothing wrong. You folks can't seem to wrap your head around that.

If I never get caught selling dope to kids & no one dies, I've done nothing wrong!

It's you who can't wrap his head around legalizing an act that would guarantee the increase of automobile related deaths in America. In your silly world, you inadvertently allow irresponsible drinking by imposing no punishment against it once behind the wheel. Your society would be statistically proven to have an increase of automobile related deaths, undeniably every morning after 2-4am when bars/clubs let out. Instead of potentially 1 out of every 20 people driving home drunk, all 20 are free to do so which guarantees an accident within' the following 30-60 minutes.

In your society, instead of wondering how to combat & prevent guaranteed, multiple drunk driving accidents every night, you just let them & the collateral deaths happen because you think the punishments will be severe enough if an accident occurs to make people think twice. That will never work because we can't keep people from still taking that chance as it is now. But at least in the current society, most people will take that risk once a weekend in hopes nothing bad happens. Your society gives them that opportunity 24/7/365 & nobody is that goddamn lucky.

 

[Keef]

You want road safety to take massive jump backwards because blowing on a breathalyzer somehow invades your privacy. Again. There are plenty of other privacy invading things going on by the governments around the world. This one is just one of those things that actually make your life a bit better and safer.

I'm now sure how it works over yonder but here in the US our current laws don't work at all. The deterent effect is little to none because all you do is get a fine and a funny license plate after three strikes. Your employer is more likely to punish you by firing you than the law is. Everybody already drives drunk, despite it being illegal. It's kinda like weed - it's illegal but everybody smokes anyway. I've done it numerous times. People do it constantly and never hit anything. I'd actually argue - I don't have any statistics to back this up - that the percentage of sober drivers who crash is actually higher than the percentage of drunk drivers who crash because drunk drivers are forced to pay attention while driving is often the last thing on the mind of sober drivers.

 

[McLaren]

I'm now sure how it works over yonder but here in the US our current laws don't work at all. The deterent effect is little to none because all you do is get a fine and a funny license plate after three strikes. Your employer is more likely to punish you by firing you than the law is. Everybody already drives drunk, despite it being illegal. It's kinda like weed - it's illegal but everybody smokes anyway. I've done it numerous times. People do it constantly and never hit anything. I'd actually argue - I don't have any statistics to back this up - that the percentage of sober drivers who crash is actually higher than the percentage of drunk drivers who crash because drunk drivers are forced to pay attention while driving is often the last thing on the mind of sober drivers.

So nobody has ever been killed by drunk-drivers! All the statistics that show drinking slows reaction times & impairs you is all big govt. lie. Drinking actually keeps you so focused, you could be driving one handed & picking your nose with your foot and be just fine.

So let's also allow street racing, talking on cell phones, hmm what else? Let's add having sex while driving as well. Because as long as nobody gets killed, you haven't done anything wrong. Who cares about the majority of everyone else on the road hoping you don't kill them, you're priority number one!

God, you make it so easy to see you're a child upset he can't do whatever he wants in society.

 

[Northstar]

I'm now sure how it works over yonder but here in the US our current laws don't work at all.

This chart shows otherwise.

Granted a reduction of 5,000 isn't huge over a 22 year period, but it's still 5,000 people that will be able to see their loved ones again.

Everybody already drives drunk, despite it being illegal.

I don't, that alone proves you wrong on this one.

It's kinda like weed - it's illegal but everybody smokes anyway.

I'm not sure how smoking pot at home is comparable to driving while drunk.

I don't have any statistics to back this up - that the percentage of sober drivers who crash is actually higher than the percentage of drunk drivers who crash because drunk drivers are forced to pay attention while driving is often the last thing on the mind of sober drivers.

From what I could find, 31% of fatal crashes were caused by drunk drivers.

So while you may not be wrong, I'm not so sure that really supports your argument as much as it supports better training of drivers.

 

[Joel]

@Keef , I understand and more or less agree with the principle but you're out to lunch here on the details, and it's exactly this kind of stupid crap that keeps libertarian philosophy on the periphery. It makes sense ideologically but you are never going to convince people it's a great idea to make impaired driving legal.

Everybody already drives drunk, despite it being illegal.

Do they? I've never driven drunk and I know tons of people who won't. Maybe the penalties are different in the US but it's very strict in Canada, I'm under 21 so if I'm caught with a BAC over 0.00% it's an instant 24 hour suspension and likely a fine and 30 day suspension as well as demerit points. If you get caught over the legal limit (0.08), first offence is a $1000 fine and 1 year license suspension (90 days with an in car breathalyzer). Second time, 30 days in jail minumum, 2 year suspension, 180 days with breathalyzer. Third time 120 days in jail, 3 year license suspension, or 1 year with breathalyzer. Those are just minimum penalties too, you can be sentenced for up to 5 years on a 2nd offence for impaired driving. And you'd better hope you didn't hurt anyone else or get in an accident before you got caught or your ass is grass. The courts here don't 🤬 around with drunk driving.

It's kinda like weed - it's illegal but everybody smokes anyway. I've done it numerous times.

It's not really like weed. People recognize that drunk driving poses an inherent risk to other people that isn't there when you get high and order pizza. If you and your friends drive drunk all the time because you think it's "like weed" that says more about how stupid you and your friends are than how stupid the laws are. I've smoked weed numerous times because it's fun and I don't hurt anyone by playing video games and eating doritos. I've never driven drunk because it's absolutely moronic and incredibly reckless to myself and those around me. I'm a 16-25 year old male, I'm already in the highest risk bracket for accidents, and as much as I'd like to believe I'm the special snowflake amazing 20 year old driver, adding alcohol to the equation just makes it even more dangerous than it already is.

People do it constantly and never hit anything. I'd actually argue - I don't have any statistics to back this up

That's interesting, because you were fine to talk about statistics when it comes to black people committing crimes. When it comes to people like you drinking and driving (most drunk drivers are men age 25-34) you're ready to throw the stats out the window. We know 30-35% of fatal accidents in Canada and the USA involve drunk driving, and that's just counting those over the legal limit (.05 is enough to impact you). You'd have to be pretty convinced that over 30-35% of miles driven were driven by drunk drivers for your argument to stand up. When we consider that drunk driving overwhelmingly occurs on Friday and Saturday nights in the summer, and that 4 in 5 drunk driving incidents involve men, it's looking pretty bad for your argument. Stats collected in Ontario suggest that you're 7.2 times more likely to be in an accident at .05, which is 2 beers for an 160 pound man. This isn't just some myth the government cooked up, the effects of alcohol on driving are well documented and it isn't pretty.

that the percentage of sober drivers who crash is actually higher than the percentage of drunk drivers who crash because drunk drivers are forced to pay attention while driving is often the last thing on the mind of sober drivers.

That's grade A bull:censored: and you know it. It doesn't matter if you "try" to pay attention more while you're driving drunk, when you're driving drunk your capacity to do so is impaired to such a degree that it doesn't matter how hard you try to pay attention. .05 is enough to seriously impair coordination, and at .08 your reaction time and reasoning skills are seriously impaired.

I get it, you don't want the government telling you what to do and you think that you're a perfectly capable drunk driver. The reality is you aren't when you're drinking no matter how great a driver you are, and the odds are heavily stacked against you. Maybe you'll drive drunk for years without having an accident, but the fact remains that every time you drive drunk you're taking on a huge amount of risk that's entirely avoidable, and takes place on public property.

 

[Blood Eagle]

You're seriously dropping the ball here.

These rules were invented for a reason. Road safety. Suck it up that they want to test your breath. Not a single part of your privacy is invaded.

Here in California we have DUI Checkpoints. You wait in a line that can take quite a while sometimes, they get right in your face and ask if you have been drinking. You can lie but they can smell it on you if you have. Now, it seems like a good idea in theory but it's actually a direct violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Many states do not conduct these DUI Checkpoints because of that very reason. California has it's own Constitution and since driving is a privilege and not a right, they can get around the 4th Amendment. These types of things have nothing to do with privacy, it's more of a Civil Rights issue. If you are happy with sacrificing your own rights and being unreasonable searched by police with no probable cause or a warrant than good for you. It has little to do with public safety but more for revenue generation. Traffic violations are that same way. 5 mph above the speed limit does not pose any kind of significant risk to anyone but the $350 fine you would have to pay makes the city money. There is not enough real crime to keep the city in business so you getting caught on small infractions like that make the City millions of dollars annually. It's a racket.

 

[Dennisch]

the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Drunk driving back then meant climbing on your horse. Times have changed. A car becomes a dangerous thing when operated by an intoxicated person. Every single study shows that the roads become safer with less drunk people behind the wheel. You see it as an infringement of your civil rights. How about the rights of the people around you? Those who will get hit by your 3000-5000lbs piece of metal and plastic. They have the right to use the road a well. In the safest way possible. And since we can not yet control the minds of drivers to keep them from speeding or driving tired, Governments can tell you that it isn't safe to drink and drive because countless studies show it. It's a small price to pay.

Or just wait until a loved one gets hit by a drunk. That will be an instant change of mind and heart.

Edit.

Everything that can be said about this has been said. If you think drunk driving should be legal, go ahead and drive drunk. Just make sure to hit a lamppost or tree on an empty road, so that you'll be the only one going out and then receive your Darwin award. Because that mindset is the dumbest thing imaginable.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Drunk driving back then meant climbing on your horse. Times have changed. A car becomes a dangerous thing when operated by an intoxicated person. Every single study shows that the roads become safer with less drunk people behind the wheel. You see it as an infringement of your civil rights. How about the rights of the people around you? Those who will get hit by your 3000-5000lbs piece of metal and plastic. They have the right to use the road a well. In the safest way possible. And since we can not yet control the minds of drivers to keep them from speeding or driving tired, Governments can tell you that it isn't safe to drink and drive because countless studies show it. It's a small price to pay.

Or just wait until a loved one gets hit by a drunk. That will be an instant change of mind and heart.

Until they change the Constitution, it stands as a living document and Law Enforcement Oath is to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Regardless whether one finds it outdated or not is a different debate. An Oath is an Oath and there is no expiration date on that.

 

[Dennisch]

Until they change the Constitution, it stands as a living document and Law Enforcement Oath is to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Regardless whether one finds it outdated or not is a different debate. An Oath is an Oath and there is no expiration date on that.

So you see it as your right to be allowed to endanger other people?

 

[Liquid]

Until they change the Constitution, it stands as a living document and Law Enforcement Oath is to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Regardless whether one finds it outdated or not is a different debate. An Oath is an Oath and there is no expiration date on that.

But still an important point if you're going to invoke it. The US constitution is far from a perfect document. The fact alone that it has needed so many amendments is testament to that. For example, there is nothing in the original constitution that says how elections are to be conducted and then there's the 3/5ths compromise.

Don't be all Justice Scalia and party like it's 1776.

 

[AnthonyD1993]

I just lost two of my friends this year because they were killed by a drunk driver. The drunk wound up walking away from it. I don't care who it is- in my opinion, anyone charged with a DUI should be arrested and have their license revoked.

 

[Blood Eagle]

So you see it as your right to be allowed to endanger other people?

You misread my feelings on the subject as if I am the guy driving drunk. I do not. It's illegal and dangerous but that does not give anyone the right to unreasonably search you with no grounds, probable cause etc. People will break the law regardless of what it is. Why should Police be able to entrap you, violate your civil rights via illegal tactics? If you have nothing to hide then you will be fine? No. It's still a violation of the outdated 4A. We are told when we are young that America is a free country. No, it's most definitely not. I support rights. Nobody has the right to drive drunk. It's my right to carry on with my life under the rule of law without getting hassled be someone looking for something without the grounds to do so.

 

[Dennisch]

Why should Police be able to entrap you, violate your civil rights via illegal tactics?

Because plenty of peoples lives have been saved this way.

 

[Liquid]

Why should Police be able to entrap you, violate your civil rights via illegal tactics?

It's not entrapment. They don't encourage you to drink and drive at all. Entrapment would be if a police officer buys you a drink at the bar, tells you to drive home and then pulls you over to give you a breath test.

 

[Famine]

I just lost two of my friends this year because they were killed by a drunk driver. The drunk wound up walking away from it. I don't care who it is- in my opinion, anyone charged with a DUI should be arrested and have their license revoked.

What was his sentence for their negligent manslaughter?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Fortunately we can rely on the exemplary judgement of a drunkard to fully evaluate the potential moral risks of driving whilst battered titless before they decide to get behind the wheel. I mean, no one ever made a bad decision whilst drunk just because something might not go to plan... right?

Hoping people will take into account the consequences of their actions in light of free choice is a lovely idea, and who knows, it might even work one day on sober people, but when hammered your judgement goes out of the window, it's simply not realistic to apply the same standard when people are in a mentally altered state.

 

[Liquid]

*cue someone to write the same for fatigued drivers*

 

[Blood Eagle]

It's not entrapment. They don't encourage you to drink and drive at all. Entrapment would be if a police officer buys you a drink at the bar, tells you to drive home and then pulls you over to give you a breath test.

Again, it's illegal police tactics I have a problem with. Where does it stop? They get real creative finding ways to disregard the document in which they swore an oath to uphold. Young Americans seem ok with this. The future isn't looking too good.

 

[AnthonyD1993]

What was his sentence for their negligent manslaughter?

To be honest, I don't know. I haven't heard many details regarding what they were going to charge him with. What I heard back in July (when the accident happened and haven't heard anything since) is that they were waiting for the toxicology report to come back before charges were filed. I should also note that the accident happened on a major stretch of road (an interstate) that didn't have barriers between traffic.

However, I will say that a guy who wound up killing a biker got about seven years in prison for manlaughter, and that guy was sober when he struck the bike that the guy he killed was riding on. The sentence for this guy will probably be longer than that since he was drunk when the accident happened.

 

[Blood Eagle]

How do you get Manslaughter for an accident that kills someone while not being intoxicated? Is there more to the biker story? Was he driving recklessly, speeding, evading Police, drag racing etc?

In Arizona they have some of the most intense driving under the influence laws. You can get a DWI for being sleep deprived. Sleep Deprivation being your intoxication. It's also all at the Police Officer's discretion. That's not right in my book.

Also in California, say you went to the bar and had a little too much to drink. You decide to do the right thing and walk home. You can get arrested for Drunk in Public. Either way, you can get railroaded at and Police Officers discretion.

 

[AnthonyD1993]

How do you get Manslaughter for an accident that kills someone while not being intoxicated? Is there more to the biker story? Was he driving recklessly, speeding, evading Police, drag racing etc?

In Arizona they have some of the most intense driving under the influence laws. You can get a DWI for being sleep deprived. Sleep Deprivation being your intoxication. It's also all at the Police Officer's discretion. That's not right in my book.

A few facts regarding the case:
1. The biker was stopped at a red light in traffic.
2. The guy that struck the biker was in a FedEx truck.
3. The data recorder on the truck showed that no effort or attempt was made by the driver to stop the truck.
4. Witnesses stated point three before the data recorder was analyzed.

The guy who was killed happened to be the nephew of one of my dad's closest friends. Everyone who knew him also knew that he was a responsible rider. He was wearing a helmet at the time that he was killed.

 

[MatskiMonk]

*cue someone to write the same for fatigued drivers*

It might be true of ability when driving (although I've never been so fatigued I fell out of a first floor window and had to have my ear stitched back on after a kick ass night of tiredness before), I'm just talking about people making a rational decision to get behind the wheel once in that state.

In Arizona they have some of the most intense driving under the influence laws. You can get a DWI for being sleep deprived. Sleep Deprivation being your intoxication. It's also all at the Police Officer's discretion. That's not right in my book.

Is the alcohol limit at the officers discretion? To a point I can understand Sleep Deprivation, as it's much harder to quantifiably test for, what do they judge it against? Alcohol is a no brainer, blow in the bag.. done.

 

[Blood Eagle]

A few facts regarding the case:
1. The biker was stopped at a red light in traffic.
2. The guy that struck the biker was in a FedEx truck.
3. The data recorder on the truck showed that no effort or attempt was made by the driver to stop the truck.
4. Witnesses stated point three before the data recorder was analyzed.

The guy who was killed happened to be the nephew of one of my dad's closest friends. Everyone who knew him also knew that he was a responsible rider. He was wearing a helmet at the time that he was killed.

So it seems that the FedEx truck didn't see him. Not really a crime IMO especially Manslaughter. It'd be different if the FedEx guy ran him down on purpose.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Is the alcohol limit at the officers discretion? To a point I can understand Sleep Deprivation, as it's much harder to quantifiably test for, what do they judge it against? Alcohol is a no brainer, blow in the bag.. done.

Yes alcohol limit at Officers discretion but that's for all the U.S. as far as I know. This means you can still get busted for alcohol related offenses even if you are below the Federal legal limit of .08 BAC. It's simple, if the Officer feels you are intoxicated either by alcohol or sleep deprivation, you are intoxicated. Regardless if you are a public danger.

 

[Dennisch]

So it seems that the FedEx truck didn't see him. Not really a crime IMO especially Manslaughter. It'd be different if the FedEx guy ran him down on purpose.

Don't you guys have different grades of manslaughter? This case would probably fall under the lightest of cases involving killing another person.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Don't you guys have different grades of manslaughter? This case would probably fall under the lightest of cases involving killing another person.

We do as far as I know. I had a high school friend who killed 3 people and served 1 year in jail on a 3 year sentence.