View Full Forums : Can I get breadsticks with that?


Gunny Burlfoot
11-07-2006, 03:57 PM
:D

Wow. Apparently, if the government doesn't legalize the stuff, we'll do it ourselves. Nothing says domestic, and accepted like delivery.

The emphasis on customer service and satisfaction was evident at one stash house, where agents found more than 30 pounds of marijuana in plain view, already packaged for holiday delivery, court papers said. The packages featured the drug ring's cartoon character logo and the greeting, "Happy Holidays From Your Friends at Cartoon!"

The operation's alleged mastermind, John Nebel, "should have been the CEO of a Fortune 500 company," said his attorney, Steve Zissou.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061107/ap_on_re_us/home_pot_delivery

Fyyr Lu'Storm
11-07-2006, 09:38 PM
It should be legalized.

Like Tudamorf suggests in other threads, much of this has to do with religious zealots, and their penchant for sticking their fingers and toes into the business of other people, and into legal and governmental affairs.

Tudamorf
11-07-2006, 09:56 PM
Sometimes I forget how backwards other areas are. Around here, you can just walk into a pot club and buy it; no one really cares. And there are a couple of other cities (Berkeley, Santa Cruz, etc.) that are even more liberal. I couldn't care less if you smoke it, as long as you don't do it near me (the stench is even worse than tobacco).

Frankly, I wonder why <i>anyone</i> cares. Alcohol is infinitely more dangerous to society than marijuana, and tobacco carries more health risks. I shudder to think how much the taxpayers of the backwards states are paying for police to find and arrest these non-criminals.

cladari
11-08-2006, 02:30 AM
Frankly, I wonder why anyone cares. Alcohol is infinitely more dangerous to society than marijuana, and tobacco carries more health risks. I shudder to think how much the taxpayers of the backwards states are paying for police to find and arrest these non-criminals.

It's very likely you are paying about the same as the "backwards" states since the vast majority of anti-drug money is distributed by the federal government. If a police department can justify even the slightest tie to anti drug they can spend the money anyway they like, which is why it will never be legalized, just too much money involved.

Cladari

B_Delacroix
11-08-2006, 07:44 AM
I'm all for keeping things simple. Drug use shouldn't be illegal, but if you commit a crime while on drugs, it is not to be used as an excuse to get away with it.

Aidon
11-08-2006, 04:53 PM
I'm all for keeping things simple. Drug use shouldn't be illegal, but if you commit a crime while on drugs, it is not to be used as an excuse to get away with it.

It never has been a viable excuse for getting away with a crime...

Fyyr Lu'Storm
11-09-2006, 01:29 AM
I'm all for keeping things simple. Drug use shouldn't be illegal, but if you commit a crime while on drugs, it is not to be used as an excuse to get away with it.
I would support an automatic doubling or even tripling of sentences. For actual crimes committed, of course.

Driving under the influence for example, should not be any more stringent that currently. It is not even a real crime, until someone gets hurt or someone property gets damaged. In that case, doubling or tripling of sentence would be fair, or just if you are a lawyer.

Erianaiel
11-09-2006, 06:12 AM
I would support an automatic doubling or even tripling of sentences. For actual crimes committed, of course.

Driving under the influence for example, should not be any more stringent that currently. It is not even a real crime, until someone gets hurt or someone property gets damaged. In that case, doubling or tripling of sentence would be fair, or just if you are a lawyer.

Uhm... if drunk drivers only ever injured people then your poin would be marginally sustainable. But only marginally because does anybody's right to drive while unable to outweighs everybody else's right not to be stuck in a hospital bed with injuries that they may never completely recover from?

There is this aspect of prevention that you have missed completely.

I fail to see any meaningful right to driving while being incapable of judging risks properly and reacting as quickly as needed, while the potential benefit to the victims of said behaviour is rather immense. It ranges from not suffering property damage, through not being hospitalised and not living with (more or less) serious disabilities to not having to bury friends or family.
I am curious what important personal right you see in driving while under influence that outweighs that kind of risks to others?

Klath
11-09-2006, 09:00 AM
I am curious what important personal right you see in driving while under influence that outweighs that kind of risks to others?
While I wouldn't consider it a personal right to drive under the influence, DUI laws are a measure of status rather than conduct and I think it's conduct that should be punished. If there is some minimum reaction time or coordination that the law want to require of drivers, that's fine. The police should then test all drivers against that benchmark in order to determine their fitness to drive rather than basing their decision solely on whether or not the driver has an intoxicant of some kind in their system.

Aidon
11-09-2006, 10:12 AM
Uhm... if drunk drivers only ever injured people then your poin would be marginally sustainable. But only marginally because does anybody's right to drive while unable to outweighs everybody else's right not to be stuck in a hospital bed with injuries that they may never completely recover from?

There is this aspect of prevention that you have missed completely.

I fail to see any meaningful right to driving while being incapable of judging risks properly and reacting as quickly as needed, while the potential benefit to the victims of said behaviour is rather immense. It ranges from not suffering property damage, through not being hospitalised and not living with (more or less) serious disabilities to not having to bury friends or family.
I am curious what important personal right you see in driving while under influence that outweighs that kind of risks to others?

The problem with that outlook is society has devised objective standards of what constitutes an inability to drive safely. Objective standards for a subjective issue. You don't have a right to drive unsafely...but having a .8 BAL doesn't mean you aren't or can't drive safely.

Then there is the entire issue with the notion of criminilizing actions based on there mere potential of causing harm to others.

Tudamorf
11-09-2006, 04:41 PM
The problem with that outlook is society has devised objective standards of what constitutes an inability to drive safely. Objective standards for a subjective issue.We do it all the time, out of necessity. We lack the resources or fairness to make a subjective judgment for each citizen, so we apply an objective standard to them all. There's nothing wrong with this.Then there is the entire issue with the notion of criminilizing actions based on there mere potential of causing harm to others.We do <i>that</i> all the time too. Attempted ______ (fill in any crime you like). Conspiracy to commit ______. Burglary. Public intoxication. Possession of, or being under the influence of, a controlled substance. The list goes on and on.

Your points are invalid. What you're really trying to say is, "it's not convenient for me to get a ride when I get blasted, so society should leave me alone and let me put innocent citizens' lives at risk." In this case, I'm glad that society's response is, "screw you drunks."

Panamah
11-09-2006, 05:19 PM
Chances are you're not going to get cited unless you drive badly or get in an accident. The problem is, once people start drinking their judgement goes to hell and they can't really tell if they're capable of driving or not.

Klath
11-09-2006, 06:47 PM
We do it all the time, out of necessity. We lack the resources or fairness to make a subjective judgment for each citizen, so we apply an objective standard to them all. There's nothing wrong with this.
We don't need anymore resources, they can already do roadside testing (walk a straight line, stand on one foot, touch your nose, say the alphabet backwards, etc...). If you can pass these tests and you weren't driving erratically in the first place then you shouldn't be punished.

We do <i>that</i> all the time too. Attempted ______ (fill in any crime you like). Conspiracy to commit ______. Burglary.
I'm not sure how burglary fits but in the attempted/conspiracy cases there was intent to commit a crime.

Public intoxication. Possession of, or being under the influence of, a controlled substance.
Neither public intoxication nor being under the influence of a controlled substance should be illegal in the absence of conduct that is illegal.

Tudamorf
11-09-2006, 10:00 PM
We don't need anymore resources, they can already do roadside testing (walk a straight line, stand on one foot, touch your nose, say the alphabet backwards, etc...). If you can pass these tests and you weren't driving erratically in the first place then you shouldn't be punished.If you can pass those tests and weren't driving erratically in the first place, then you <i>won't</i> be punished. You won't be stopped unless you're weaving all over the place, and you won't be arrested unless you fail the field test and/or smell like you just bathed in whiskey.I'm not sure how burglary fits but in the attempted/conspiracy cases there was intent to commit a crime.Intent to commit a crime doesn't cause harm, only committing the crime does. So attempt and conspiracy punish you for <i>thinking</i> about doing something bad, even if you didn't do it, and no one was ever injured. Burglary is like attempt, because it is unlawfully entering a building with the intent to commit a crime, and unlawful entry alone doesn't cause any real harm.Neither public intoxication nor being under the influence of a controlled substance should be illegal in the absence of conduct that is illegal.But they are. At least here in California. There are many such crimes that you call "status" crimes.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
11-10-2006, 12:11 AM
I fail to see any meaningful right to driving while being incapable of judging risks properly and reacting as quickly as needed

Um, because being incapable of judging risks or reacting properly is NOT the criterion for determining if you are too drunk to drive.

The criterion is based on a universal(applying to everyone) low common denominator.

Not on reality, or on individual differences, behavior, or reactions.

We have already gone over this discussion many many times before here.

If the determining factor really was incapacitation while driving, a universal Blood Alcohol Percentage would one of the last tools used to determine that incapacitation.

It really is akin to "My cousin Eddy, never drinks, and is such a lightweight, that if he has .08% BAC, I certainly don't want him driving at all"...your cousin Eddy should not be driving with a BAC of 0.04% actually.

But it really is not fair, if my cousin Eddy gets pulled over, and blows a 0.08 and goes to jail, yet my friend Josh, who is a real party animal, and has developed a real alcohol tolerance, for him to skate(get off) if he blows higher. Even if my friend Josh is a seasoned and experienced drunk driver, and has never had an accident, nor ever will, we can't allow him to drive with a BAC higher than Eddy, because that is not fair.

The determining factor has to be uniform, and the same for everyone. Regardless of actual driving abilities or reaction times, or real life drunk driving conditions, or the alcohol tolerance of seasoned and safe drunk drivers.

Eddy who is a horrible driver at 0.08 and Josh who is a good driver at 0.16 can't have a different determining criterion for being legally drunk, it has to be the same, legally. Even though Josh is still a good driver at 0.16, and will never hit anyone or anything, or if he will NEVER hit anyone or anything.

It is a punishment based on odds, not on actual crime. Josh has to pay the additional penalty, even though he is safe, because of the odds of Eddy, or other lightweights like him, of hitting somebody. The crime, of drunk driving today, is based on the statistics of other people's previous outcomes, not on any real criterion, say of actually hurting anyone.

This is one of the few crimes, where there is a crime, before the REAL crime is committed. Based only on statistics and odds, of other third parties no less(not of oneself).

Fyyr Lu'Storm
11-10-2006, 12:13 AM
There are many such crimes that you call "status" crimes.

Mala Prohibita.

They are bad because we prohibit them.


Mala in se

They are bad because they are bad.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
11-10-2006, 12:23 AM
Chances are you're not going to get cited unless you drive badly or get in an accident.

Ya, that is why they have check point stops.

That is why they pull drivers over for legally driving through a yellow light.

That is why they pull drivers over because they have oversize tires.

That is why they pull drivers over at night because their windows are open.

That is why they pull drivers over for driving slowly and safely at night.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
11-10-2006, 12:35 AM
I am curious what important personal right you see in driving while under influence that outweighs that kind of risks to others?

If RISK itself is to be the criterion for a crime to have occured, before any real harm or crime has happened, then we should certainly apply that reasoning to other pre-crimes as well.

We could make all forms of risk to others illegal. And we should certainly start with risks which are statistically higher than those of driving drunk.

Tudamorf
11-10-2006, 12:45 AM
If RISK itself is to be the criterion for a crime to have occured, before any real harm or crime has happened, then we should certainly apply that reasoning to other pre-crimes as well.We do. I cited a few examples. Would you like a few more?

Shooting at an inhabited dwelling (even if no one is inside, or hurt). Making a terrorist threat (even if you have no intention of carrying it out). Violating a restraining order (even if you don't intend to cause the protected person harm). Not carrying insurance (even if you don't get into an accident which requires insurance). Selling drugs near a school (even if no children ever buy them).

The list goes on and on. We criminalize countless actions that have a statistical probability of harm which we feel is higher than average, even if that harm never actually occurs.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
11-10-2006, 12:50 AM
We do. I cited a few examples. Would you like a few more?


I got plenty of my own, thank you.

I just need to convince enough of you all to change your opinions about them, and we can take away more liberties of yours, with laws.

Klath
11-10-2006, 02:15 AM
If you can pass those tests and weren't driving erratically in the first place, then you <i>won't</i> be punished. You won't be stopped unless you're weaving all over the place, and you won't be arrested unless you fail the field test and/or smell like you just bathed in whiskey.
That's not even remotely true. Have you never been through a drunk driving checkpoint or been pulled over and told that you "match the description of someone we're looking for" (profiled)?

Intent to commit a crime doesn't cause harm, only committing the crime does. So attempt and conspiracy punish you for <i>thinking</i> about doing something bad, even if you didn't do it, and no one was ever injured.
The proof necessary to convict in a conspiracy trial is wee bit higher than just saying that the defendant was thinking about committing a crime. It usually involves demonstrating that they took actions which made the commission of the crime inevitable. Like, for example, hiring a hit man. A driver who is drunk only by virtue of their blood alcohol level doesn't intend anything other than to get to where they're going and the likelihood of an accident occurring is far from inevitable. Drunk driving accidents are extremely rare when you take into consideration how many people drive while under the influence.

Tudamorf
11-10-2006, 02:33 AM
That's not even remotely true. Have you never been through a drunk driving checkpoint or been pulled over and told that you "match the description of someone we're looking for" (profiled)?Never.The proof necessary to convict in a conspiracy trial is wee bit higher than just saying that the defendant was thinking about committing a crime. It usually involves demonstrating that they took actions which made the commission of the crime inevitable.Not true. To be convicted of conspiracy, you need to prove the agreement and only the tiniest act in furtherance of it. If you and Aidon conspire to kill me, and then you call him the next day just to discuss a time and place, you're guilty of conspiracy, even if neither of you ever do anything else. The crime at that point isn't even remotely "inevitable."

For attempt, you have to take more steps towards completing the crime, but again, far from your "inevitable" standard.A driver who is drunk only by virtue of their blood alcohol level doesn't intend anything other than to get to where they're going and the likelihood of an accident occurring is far from inevitable. Drunk driving accidents are extremely rare when you take into consideration how many people drive while under the influence.A drunk driver with 0.15 BAC has a 200x relative risk (http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrinkingAndDriving.html) (20,000% increased chance) of causing a fatal accident. Extremely rare, my ass. Drunks on the road are a disaster waiting to happen. I think you drunks should have your licenses permanently revoked on the first offense.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
11-10-2006, 05:33 AM
Never. Not true. To be convicted of conspiracy, you need to prove the agreement and only the tiniest act in furtherance of it.
We need to change that then. If Aidon and I are watching Football together, and I say "I would love to kill my ex-wife". And he says, "Ya, I hate her too, I would help you."

Just saying that to one another under your RULE, Tuda, we would both be in prison. If you like that level of loss of liberty, and governmental intrusion into peoples lives, die mutherfcker commie.

If you and Aidon conspire to kill me, and then you call him the next day just to discuss a time and place, you're guilty of conspiracy, even if neither of you ever do anything else. The crime at that point isn't even remotely "inevitable."

See above.

For attempt, you have to take more steps towards completing the crime, but again, far from your "inevitable" standard.
Reasonable is a fine enough criterion to me, rather than inevitable one.

A drunk driver with 0.15 BAC has a 200x relative risk (http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrinkingAndDriving.html) (20,000% increased chance) of causing a fatal accident.
Statistics, and odds. On the chances that something in the future MAY occur is sufficient for you to convict, and imprison someone?

Extremely rare, my ass. Drunks on the road are a disaster waiting to happen.
Even drunks who have never hurt or damaged anyone, nor ever will? You want to get them too?


I think you drunks should have your licenses permanently revoked on the first offense.
Even if they have never hurt anyone. You want to punish people BEFORE they do?

So if the odds of someone under the age of 25 of hitting you with their car, is greater than someone hitting while drunk, you would support them losing their license BEFORE hitting you.

If the odds of someone over the age of 55 of hitting you with their car is GREATER than that of a drunk driver hitting you, you would support imprisoning them, or punishing them commensurately.

For statistically speaking, and you can find this out yourself, of course. It is more likely that you will be hit, and killed, in an accident by someone under the age of 25, or over the age of 55, than the chances of you being hit by a drunk driver. You know that, right?(you are just ignoring it)l.

Anka
11-10-2006, 09:02 AM
It is more likely that you will be hit, and killed, in an accident by someone under the age of 25, or over the age of 55, than the chances of you being hit by a drunk driver. You know that, right?(you are just ignoring it)l.

That of course is false use of statistics. The vast number of sober drivers on the road does not make any particular drunk driver any safer.

Stopping over-55's from driving will not make drunk drivers less likely to hit you. On the other hand, ensuring people drive when they're sober will make over-55's, and every other group, less likely to hit you.

Klath
11-10-2006, 09:30 AM
A drunk driver with 0.15 BAC has a 200x relative risk (http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrinkingAndDriving.html) (20,000% increased chance) of causing a fatal accident. Extremely rare, my ass. Drunks on the road are a disaster waiting to happen. I think you drunks should have your licenses permanently revoked on the first offense.
Your statistic suffers from the same problem that the laws do -- it takes information derived from tests with large populations and applies them to individuals. As a result, it is not an accurate predictor of individual impairment/ability. A better test, one that actually measures what's important, would be to test drivers against a fixed standard of physical and cognitive ability. Individual impairment (or base ability) should be measured directly rather than inferred from a statistic.

Anka
11-10-2006, 11:50 AM
A better test, one that actually measures what's important, would be to test drivers against a fixed standard of physical and cognitive ability. Individual impairment (or base ability) should be measured directly rather than inferred from a statistic.

It has been. Drunk drivers lose reaction time and concentration even when having drunk a very moderate amount, two beers say.

Klath
11-10-2006, 12:56 PM
A better test, one that actually measures what's important, would be to test drivers against a fixed standard of physical and cognitive ability. Individual impairment (or base ability) should be measured directly rather than inferred from a statistic.
It has been. Drunk drivers lose reaction time and concentration even when having drunk a very moderate amount, two beers say.
A fixed standard is an absolute standard that everyone must meet. What you are talking about ( not performing to the fullest extent of your capabilities) is a relative standard. There should be a set legal standard that dictates exactly what reaction times and cognitive abilities are required in order to drive. Instead of punishing people because their BAC level is above an arbitrary value they should be punished for failing to meet the standard.

Anka
11-10-2006, 02:04 PM
A fixed standard is an absolute standard that everyone must meet. What you are talking about ( not performing to the fullest extent of your capabilities) is a relative standard. There should be a set legal standard that dictates exactly what reaction times and cognitive abilities are required in order to drive. Instead of punishing people because their BAC level is above an arbitrary value they should be punished for failing to meet the standard.

When you've got that test you can patent it and sell it to the authorities. Until then we can prevent drunk drivers taking to the roads. There is no reason to allow needless deaths on the roads, citing a lack of technology, when we can manage the problem with procedures.

Alcohol boosts confidence and especially overconfidence. Allowing people to assess their own competence before they drive drunk is specifically inappropriate.

Tudamorf
11-10-2006, 02:37 PM
Statistics, and odds. On the chances that something in the future MAY occur is sufficient for you to convict, and imprison someone?In the case of drunk driving, yes. (For serious crimes, we generally require a specific criminal intent, too.)Even drunks who have never hurt or damaged anyone, nor ever will? You want to get them too?Yes. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I'd rather see the drunk spend the night in jail to sleep it off, than spend life in prison for killing an innocent family. We're really doing the drunk a favor.Even if they have never hurt anyone. You want to punish people BEFORE they do?For maybe the 10th time, YES. That is the whole idea. We have a wide range of laws that do exactly this, and I cited you many examples. This is just another example.So if the odds of someone under the age of 25 of hitting you with their car, is greater than someone hitting while drunk, you would support them losing their license BEFORE hitting you.A 25-year-old does not have a 200x relative risk of hitting me. If he did, we would probably raise the driving age, or impose strict limitations.

Furthermore, there's a cost/benefit analysis here. People need to drive to get around. If we ban them completely from driving, we're imposing a serious restriction on their life. So the cost of that driving has to be higher to justify a ban.

In the case of drunks, they're just lazy asses who don't want to arrange a ride when they're blasted, or even worse, they're people like Aidon who genuinely believe they are great drivers even after they polish off their third six pack. There's no benefit to allowing these people to drive, so the cost has to be much smaller to justify a ban.If the odds of someone over the age of 55 of hitting you with their car is GREATER than that of a drunk driver hitting you, you would support imprisoning them, or punishing them commensurately.Again, cost/benefit analysis. Their chance of hitting me would have to be much greater than a drunk's chance of hitting me, and then, it would be a license revocation, not imprisonment.For statistically speaking, and you can find this out yourself, of course. It is more likely that you will be hit, and killed, in an accident by someone under the age of 25, or over the age of 55, than the chances of you being hit by a drunk driver.I doubt that, since 39% of all traffic deaths are alcohol-related. You'd have to show me statistics saying that <25 and >55 drivers are responsible for 82% of all non-alcohol-related traffic fatalities.

Even if you did, we go back to the cost/benefit analysis. Drunks have no legitimate interest in driving drunk. Ordinary citizens have a legitimate interest in driving while sober. It's not <i>just</i> a question of probability of harm.

Klath
11-10-2006, 02:41 PM
When you've got that test you can patent it and sell it to the authorities.
No need, it already exists. Cops can administer a Standardized Field Sobriety Test (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/deskbk.html#SFST) and use the results of that to make a determination rather than relying on BAC levels.

Tudamorf
11-10-2006, 03:02 PM
A better test, one that actually measures what's important, would be to test drivers against a fixed standard of physical and cognitive ability.Countless studies have proven cognitive and motor impairment from alcohol. That's where we get figures such as 0.08%. The best proof, of course, is in the empirical accident statistics: if drunks have a 200x relative risk, then the alcohol is a proven impairment.Individual impairment (or base ability) should be measured directly rather than inferred from a statistic.If we had a device that could objectively measure driving ability under all circumstances, and would not allow you to start the car if you failed the test, I'd gladly welcome it as a replacement to our existing laws. But we don't, and we're likely to have auto-pilot cars before such a device is invented.

Aidon
11-10-2006, 03:10 PM
We do it all the time, out of necessity. We lack the resources or fairness to make a subjective judgment for each citizen, so we apply an objective standard to them all.

We have the resources. Field sobriety testing is perfectly valid, especially in this day and age when every police cruiser is equipped with a video camera to essentially eliminate "he said/she said" arguments on behalf of prosecution or defendant.


There's nothing wrong with this.We do <i>that</i> all the time too. Attempted ______ (fill in any crime you like). Conspiracy to commit ______. Burglary.

These all require A) Criminal Intent B) Proof of that Criminal Intent. You have to show that someone tried to commit these crimes. There is no criminal intent to damage anyone else (financially or physically) in driving under the influence, in and of itself.

Public intoxication. Possession of, or being under the influence of, a controlled substance. The list goes on and on.

Public intoxication is a bull**** law which should be removed from the books, for the same reason. When that intoxicated person crosses the line into disorderly conduct, then there is grounds for arrest.

There is an innate logical fallicy in any argument which entails pre-existing use of a fallacious argument as justification for its continuation. Its akin to suggesting that even though we know breaking fingers is cruel and unusual punishment...we can still use it as a means of punishing shoplifting because its already used as the punishement for breaking and entering. The correct action is not to expand its use, but to ban its use for both.

Your points are invalid. What you're really trying to say is, "it's not convenient for me to get a ride when I get blasted, so society should leave me alone and let me put innocent citizens' lives at risk." In this case, I'm glad that society's response is, "screw you drunks."

Actually, it is your points which have been shown to be invalid, not mine, and what I'm saying is "its time to stop outlawing conduct which otherwise would not be considered criminal, but for the government criminalizing it". There is nothing innately wrong or harmful in driving after drinking. Only when that drinking has caused you to drive in a reckless manner or harm someone. We've criminalized potentiality...which is a horrible standard and precedent.

Aidon
11-10-2006, 03:21 PM
If you can pass those tests and weren't driving erratically in the first place, then you <i>won't</i> be punished. You won't be stopped unless you're weaving all over the place

Just plain wrong. Cleveland, Ohio, for instance, used to (and may still do so) block every cross street off the main drag through downtown after 1 AMish on the Saturday night before a Browns game to do a sobriety check. Its purpose was solely for the thousands of dollars the city made.

and you won't be arrested unless you fail the field test and/or smell like you just bathed in whiskey.

You can "smell like you just bathed in whiskey" without having more than one drink...say...someone bathed you in whiskey (spilled drink). Of course, they'll still arrest you if they so much as catch a whiff of booze on your breath. Ignore the fact that it may have been a glass of wine with your dinner.


Intent to commit a crime doesn't cause harm, only committing the crime does. So attempt and conspiracy punish you for <i>thinking</i> about doing something bad, even if you didn't do it, and no one was ever injured.

Thinking about committing a crime is not a criminal offense. Talking about committing a crime is not a criminal offense. Planning the specifics of a crime and taking steps in the furtherance of said plan is a criminal offense. Criminal intent has been a part of criminal juriprudence since before America was formed.

Burglary is like attempt, because it is unlawfully entering a building with the intent to commit a crime, and unlawful entry alone doesn't cause any real harm.But they are. At least here in California. There are many such crimes that you call "status" crimes.

You're understanding of the law is flawed.

Unlawful entry causes harm in that a person has a right to privacy in the united states and your home is your castle (well, federally and in most states, I realize California has changed it to be your home may belong to you but the Government retains the right to walk in whenever they like and do a full cavity search on you, because the Government is better than people and the people have no rights but those the Government deems them worthy of). People are not permitted to walk into your home without permission due to that right.

Aidon
11-10-2006, 03:29 PM
We do. I cited a few examples. Would you like a few more?

Shooting at an inhabited dwelling (even if no one is inside, or hurt).

You cannot be certain noone is inside, that noone is hurt is secondary to the crime of shooting at an inhabited dwelling, and shooting at any building is harmful on its face.

Making a terrorist threat (even if you have no intention of carrying it out).

Screaming Fire in a crowded theater. It creates panic, which is a harm.

Violating a restraining order (even if you don't intend to cause the protected person harm).

The crime in violating a restraining order is in that you have violated a court order. Court orders must be obeyed for our courts to have any actual power. The harm is in rejecting the powers of the court.

Not carrying insurance (even if you don't get into an accident which requires insurance).

This should not be a law...

Selling drugs near a school (even if no children ever buy them).

Again, this should not be a law.

The list goes on and on. We criminalize countless actions that have a statistical probability of harm which we feel is higher than average, even if that harm never actually occurs.

As I just posted above...but feel it is important to reiterate here as well.

Using previous errors as justification for a new error of the same sort is a logical fallacy.

That I was stupid enough to sit down and break three toes on my foot one by one with a hammer is not justification for breaking the fourth.

Aidon
11-10-2006, 03:39 PM
That of course is false use of statistics. The vast number of sober drivers on the road does not make any particular drunk driver any safer.

Stopping over-55's from driving will not make drunk drivers less likely to hit you. On the other hand, ensuring people drive when they're sober will make over-55's, and every other group, less likely to hit you.


But stopping over-55's from driving will reduce the odds of people being hit and harmed or killed in accidents...which is exactly the reason given for DUI laws.

Aidon
11-10-2006, 03:41 PM
When you've got that test you can patent it and sell it to the authorities. Until then we can prevent drunk drivers taking to the roads. There is no reason to allow needless deaths on the roads, citing a lack of technology, when we can manage the problem with procedures.

Alcohol boosts confidence and especially overconfidence. Allowing people to assess their own competence before they drive drunk is specifically inappropriate.

...by your reason we should also ban anyone who isn't particularly good at sports or isn't very bright, we can't measure it exactly, but what the hell.

Aidon
11-10-2006, 03:55 PM
In the case of drunk driving, yes. (For serious crimes, we generally require a specific criminal intent, too.)

Drunk driving can be a felony...that is, by definition, a serious crime.

Yes. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I'd rather see the drunk spend the night in jail to sleep it off, than spend life in prison for killing an innocent family. We're really doing the drunk a favor.

is that what you think happens when a person is arrested for DUI? A night in jail and there you go fellah, don't do it again?

That's what used to happen before people like yourself went insane. Now, you get your car impounded (which means they can, and do, rip it apart to "inventory" your possessions. You spend at least a night jail, while you wait for arraignment. You get charged with a crime, have to appear before a criminal court (this isn't municipal vehicle court, but county court), lose your license, pay a minimum of 600 dollars in fines and costs, run a risk of prison and a felony conviction depending on circumstances, and almost certainly have to attend a weekend class on the evils of drink which you have to pay for (no clue what that runs).

No the old standard used to be the cops would either drive you home or to jail, call your wife/parent if you were in jail so they could come pick you up, or if that wasn't possible, you slept it off. In good towns, the cop might follow you home while you drove your car and tell you that if he caught you driving drunk again, he was going to tell your wife.



In the case of drunks, they're just lazy asses who don't want to arrange a ride when they're blasted, or even worse, they're people like Aidon who genuinely believe they are great drivers even after they polish off their third six pack.

I don't drink beer I drink Jack n Coke (tall, hold the lime). I don't drink 18 shots of anything and presume I can drive. At .08 BAL/BAC, it takes maybe two drinks before you're illegal. I can drive perfectly safely after as many as 8 or 9 drinks over the course of three to five hours, but I'm going to blow "drunk" every time.


There's no benefit to allowing these people to drive, so the cost has to be much smaller to justify a ban.

The cost must be much much higher before you start taking away the right to vote and assigning prison sentances (felony consequences). Further, the cost just isn't that high. 80% of all motor vehicle accidents have nothing to do whatsoever with alcohol.

Tudamorf
11-10-2006, 05:26 PM
But stopping over-55's from driving will reduce the odds of people being hit and harmed or killed in accidents...which is exactly the reason given for DUI laws.So will banning automobiles altogether. What exactly is your point?

The statistical risk of a person dying as a result of a certain activity is never evaluated in a vacuum; it's just one variable. In the case of drunk drivers, there's no good justification for the activity, so <i>any</i> risk of harm is unacceptable.Drunk driving can be a felony...that is, by definition, a serious crime.In California, a first offense isn't a felony, and you get no jail time. You have to have multiple offenses to start facing any serious penalty. Considering how infrequently drunk drivers are caught, a multiple offender is most likely an alcoholic and a supreme road hazard.

What do you expect, to drive drunk every night and only face the punishment of being hand-held home?

Erianaiel
11-10-2006, 06:48 PM
So will banning automobiles altogether. What exactly is your point?

The statistical risk of a person dying as a result of a certain activity is never evaluated in a vacuum; it's just one variable. In the case of drunk drivers, there's no good justification for the activity, so <i>any</i> risk of harm is unacceptable.In California, a first offense isn't a felony, and you get no jail time. You have to have multiple offenses to start facing any serious penalty. Considering how infrequently drunk drivers are caught, a multiple offender is most likely an alcoholic and a supreme road hazard.

What do you expect, to drive drunk every night and only face the punishment of being hand-held home?

Tuda, it is fairly obvious by now that reason is not going to make an impression on them. You migh as well give up (and be glad that they are not in a position to dictate law).

The driving under influence laws recognise that a car is a thousand or so kg of potentially deadly equipment so anybody operating one better be in control. Alcohol has been observed to impair the ability to operate a vehicle safely and at the same time exaggerating the idea of ones abilities. This is a very dangerous combination. Since there is no good reason why somebody should be driving a car while being affected by alcohol it is simply prohobited to do so.
There is no meaningful reason why anybody must be allowed to drive a car while being unable to properly judge risks and having an impaired reaction speed.
There is a very good reason why people should be prevented from driving a car in that condition: there is less property damage, and less people are injured, maimed or killed.
The conclusion is simple: banning people from driving under influence has a negliceable effect on their personal freedom compared to the very real and significant positive effect on the people who would otherwise be victims of accidents caused by drunk drivers. If 100000 people are prevented from driving while under influence on any given night then even if the chance of them causing an accident is only 1 in 10000 (and it is a lot higher than that) it would still prevent 10 accidents. On any given day.
The 0.08 (or 0.05) percentage is hardly arbitrary. Studies have ended up with that number as the point where a majority of people starts showing impairing effects from alcohol. And yes, that number is unfair towards men because women tend to be affected by alcohol more strongly so they drag down the alloweable percentage for men because for practical reasons the law must put a point where somebody is considered too drunk to drive and it is impractical to tailor it legally to individual situations. So they come up with a percentage where (say) 90pct of the drivers starts showing negative effects on their ability to drive and use that as the cut-off point for all (the actual percentage likely is different). The percentage is also influenced by the ability to reliably test it in the field using devices like a breath analyser rather than administering a blood test (the first is not invasive and can be done by any police officer, the second requires somebody with a license to practice medicine (or at least to draw blood).

But saying that people should be allowed to drive while under influence because they have not yet caused an accident yet is callous in the extreme.


Eri

Klath
11-10-2006, 07:07 PM
for practical reasons the law must put a point where somebody is considered too drunk to drive and it is impractical to tailor it legally to individual situations.
I dispute this assumption and in an earlier post I provided a link to the standard field sobriety test which is not just practical, it's currently in use (at least in the US). If you can pass that test and you haven't committed a driving infraction then you should be sent on your way without further hassles.

But saying that people should be allowed to drive while under influence because they have not yet caused an accident yet is callous in the extreme.
I'm not saying that, I'm saying that if you haven't done anything wrong and you pass the test, you should be allowed to drive.

Aldarion_Shard
11-10-2006, 07:35 PM
What Klath said above is entirely correct -- it is not only possible to curtail dangerous drunk drivers without violating the rights of non-dangerous drivers who have consumed alcohol, but its practical. The field sobriety test is enough.

In addition, drunk drivers cause a small fraction of the total fatal car accidents every year. Until the government is willing to step up and do something about the majority of these accidents, which are caused by bad drivers, insisting on criminalizing the purported cause of a small fraction of the total problem is foolishness.

It is motivated 100% by puritanical ideas about drinking being bad, and subsequently justified by faulty logic.

Tudamorf
11-10-2006, 07:50 PM
I dispute this assumption and in an earlier post I provided a link to the standard field sobriety test which is not just practical, it's currently in use (at least in the US). If you can pass that test and you haven't committed a driving infraction then you should be sent on your way without further hassles.That test is certainly no perfect indicator of whether you're fit to drive; it's just a rough indicator. Since the test involves predictable steps, you can learn how to pass it even while drunk, whereas driving is unpredictable, and you can never be a "good" drunk driver.In addition, drunk drivers cause a small fraction of the total fatal car accidents every year.If 39% is a "small fraction," yes, you're right. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

Anka
11-10-2006, 08:56 PM
What Klath said above is entirely correct -- it is not only possible to curtail dangerous drunk drivers without violating the rights of non-dangerous drivers who have consumed alcohol, but its practical. The field sobriety test is enough.

There is no "right to drive drunk" to violate. You must be in control of your car when you drive as required by your license. The field sobriety test may be a sensible measure of control but do drivers actually test themselves before they set off? More importantly, do they put away the car keys and phone for a taxi when they fail?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
11-10-2006, 10:51 PM
That of course is false use of statistics.


No, not of course.

Anyone can use statistics any way they wish.

And they often do.

Take Tudamorf's statistic of alcohol related accidents, for example.
It includes all accidents of any party related to the accident.
It includes sober drivers who hit drunk drivers.
It includes sober drivers who have drunk passengers in the car.
It includes sober drivers who hit drunk pedestrians.
It includes sober drivers who hit sober drivers who have drunk passengers.
It includes sober drivers who have an alcoholic beverage in the car.
And less problematic, of course, it includes drunk drivers in single car accidents, that is to say, a drunk who runs into a ditch or pole, and hurts no one but themselves.

He makes the leap from "related to", to "caused by", with relative ease.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
11-10-2006, 11:01 PM
There is no "right to drive drunk" to violate. You must be in control of your car when you drive as required by your license. The field sobriety test may be a sensible measure of control but do drivers actually test themselves before they set off? More importantly, do they put away the car keys and phone for a taxi when they fail?

If an elderly driver can not pass the field sobriety test while sober should they be allowed to continue to drive?

Reaction time may or may not be the best indicator of driving ability. Many young drivers have great reaction times, but poor judgment, and are poor drivers because of it. They may be great at PS3 or paintball, or whatever, but suck at driving.

One of these days, I am going to save up a bunch of money. And conduct a study to show that seasoned and experienced drunk drivers may be better drivers than pre 25 or post 55 drivers. Go out to Safetyville, or something, not on public roads, and conduct actual driving tests. Surprising that no one else has done actually testing and comparison, and it being over 25 years since Candy Lightner's little blond haired daughter got killed by a drunk driver...and no one has conducted any actual studies to back up their opinions.

Klath
11-10-2006, 11:27 PM
The field sobriety test may be a sensible measure of control but do drivers actually test themselves before they set off? More importantly, do they put away the car keys and phone for a taxi when they fail?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Drivers don't currently check their BAC before they set off (or at least the practice isn't widespread). I think that these are dynamics that we have to deal with whether we use BAC or field sobriety tests to gauge fitness to drive.

Tudamorf
11-11-2006, 12:49 AM
If an elderly driver can not pass the field sobriety test while sober should they be allowed to continue to drive?Elderly drivers might not have the physical ability to perform parts of the test. The test assumes a healthy, physically fit individual.

And, as usual, you're ignoring the cost/benefit analysis, probably because it sinks your argument. Don't think it has gone unnoticed, though.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
11-11-2006, 02:43 AM
Please share with us the benefit of elderly drivers.

Most of them are retired, and don't even have jobs that they need to drive to.

Tudamorf
11-11-2006, 03:43 AM
Most of them are retired, and don't even have jobs that they need to drive to.Retired seniors usually aren't Internet-savvy. They're not going to spend much of their money (and thereby boost the economy) if they can't leave their house and drive to Wal-Mart, their pharmacist, and a restaurant for dinner.

Panamah
11-11-2006, 12:39 PM
If an elderly driver can not pass the field sobriety test while sober should they be allowed to continue to drive?
Poor elderly drivers definitely need to have their rights pulled. But they're usually caught in much the same way drunk drivers are caught. They drive poorly and are cited.

Put judging from what I saw from people living around my parents, they're not being proactive enough in catching bad elderly drivers. I think once you hit 75 you should be tested a lot more frequently.

But very young drivers also have a lot of accidents, from poor judgement.

Still, no one is going to hassle you for drunk driving unless you drive drunkenly. If you've got perfect control what's to worry about?

Klath
11-11-2006, 01:53 PM
Still, no one is going to hassle you for drunk driving unless you drive drunkenly. If you've got perfect control what's to worry about?
DUI checkpoints that rely on breathalyzer results in their field sobriety tests.

Also, although some here seem to think it doesn't happen, cops profile people all the time and pull them over to check them out. When I had long hair and a crap car it used to happen to me quite frequently when i went on road trips (esp in the south). I was always told that I'd been pulled over becaise I "matched the description of someone they were looking for" or that I'd failed to signal a lane change (when I'd been in the same lane for miles). If I were black I have no doubt it would have happened a lot more often. Their questions never had anything to do with my supposed infraction and I was never ticketed. The only thing the cops seemed to care about was whether I'd been drinking or if I had drugs in the car.

Panamah
11-11-2006, 02:10 PM
I've been driving for a whole lot of years and I've never, ever run into a checkpoint. Mostly they do them on holidays where people tend to drink a lot and they're usually advertised in advance. And in my state you can refuse to take the breathalyzer although I think there's a penalty for that.

But easier yet, don't drive when you plan to be doing serious drinking.

Am I allowed to choose which chemical test I submit to? If so, which is the best choice?

In the State of California you may choose between a blood test, breathalyzer test, and a urine test. In most cases a blood test is the most accurate at determining your BAC, or blood alcohol content. Therefore if you are certain that you are sober it would be a wise decision to choose to submit to a blood test. Breathalyzer tests are not 100% accurate and the results of these tests may not be saved. Therefore many results of breathalyzer tests are disputed at a later date. In California a urine test is a last resort, and only used when blood or breath test are unavailable or unable to be used by the suspect.

Klath
11-12-2006, 10:23 AM
But easier yet, don't drive when you plan to be doing serious drinking.
Of course. My point is that it should be your level of ability that determines your fitness to drive, not your BAC.

And in my state you can refuse to take the breathalyzer although I think there's a penalty for that
I mentioned the breathalyzer because it's the only BAC measuring test that they use in the field (that I know of). It's the use of use of BAC in general that I object to so urine/blood tests are no better.

As an example, even if they have the same BAC, a 30 year old race car driver is likely to be more fit to drive than an 80 year old who drives infrequently. Both drivers should be held to the same standard of ability.

Gunny Burlfoot
11-12-2006, 04:50 PM
When I had long hair and a crap car it used to happen to me quite frequently when i went on road trips (esp in the south). I was always told that I'd been pulled over becaise I "matched the description of someone they were looking for" or that I'd failed to signal a lane change (when I'd been in the same lane for miles). If I were black I have no doubt it would have happened a lot more often. Their questions never had anything to do with my supposed infraction and I was never ticketed. The only thing the cops seemed to care about was whether I'd been drinking or if I had drugs in the car.

That happens a lot 'round these parts. One of my friends, while in college, also had long hair and a old car. He was a night manager in a local resturant, and whenever he closed the resturant and went home, just about every week or bi-monthly, they'd pull him over for no reason at all. And ask him if he had been drinking or doing drugs. No matter how many times he told them what his job was and where he worked, they continued to pull him over. It got so bad, he literally knew each officer's face by sight on the beat in that area.

Once he upgraded jobs, he bought a new car, and cut his hair. He hasn't been pulled over in that area since.

This is a prime reason why part of me is screaming to abolish these silly traffic laws, and several other laws that make no sense the way they are implemented. You might say, that would be the wild west! But even then, if you had the courage to own a gun, you had a better chance that with the massive monolith of the law enforcement of today. With today's centralized law enforcement agencies, there is literally nothing you can do other than bend over and take whatever they choose to shove up there, unless you are: A) Rich, B) Well-connected, or C) a civil rights attorney.

And none of the above protect you against SWAT teams getting the wrong addresses.

The War on Drugs = Bull****
The War on Drunk Driving = Bull****
The War on Speeding = Bull****

If anyone can get down the road without running into anyone else, and stay in their lane at all times, and can brake exactly when they need to, I don't give a flying **** what they might be on, or not on, or how old they are, or how young they are. Some people can do it whatever their chemical status. Many others can't, even if they have their hands on the 10 & 2 wheel positions, stone cold sober, and a supercomputer to handle everything other than keeping it between the left yellow line and the right white line.

Now, if they can't drive safely, whether they're on something or not, but try it anyway, and wreck, or God forbid, run over a kid, then God have mercy on their souls, because no one else should.

I have seen safety posters displayed prominently where I work where it cautions against backing out of your driveway without checking first, showing a depiction of what might happen if you didn't, and made me a little paranoid about it. Fortunately, I have a wide enough driveway to turn around before pulling out, thus avoiding squishing a child. I have often wondered why whenever a driver has run over a child through their own neligence, why they don't immediately take their own life? How could they ever look at themselves again in the mirror again?

Just a personal stark raving fear of mine, I guess.

Klath
11-12-2006, 05:33 PM
That happens a lot 'round these parts.
Do you live between Florida and Texas near I10 by any chance? I was pulled over three times in about as many hours while traveling along that stretch -- all for no-ticket profile stops. What an irritating waste of time.

Tudamorf
11-12-2006, 05:54 PM
Some people can do it whatever their chemical status.Perhaps. But the overwhelming majority of people can't, and they cause so much damage to society, that we have to ban everyone from doing it.

The flip side of your argument -- a sober, reckless driver -- is already covered by existing laws. Your license can be revoked for many reasons.

It's funny, just about everyone thinks they're an above average driver. Alcohol multiplies that overconfidence exponentially. How would you feel if you ran over a child because you overestimated your driving ability as you were staggering out of that bar at 2 A.M.?

Klath
11-12-2006, 06:14 PM
How would you feel if you ran over a child because you overestimated your driving ability as you were staggering out of that bar at 2 A.M.?
I have a friend who puked on a kid after a bender. He felt pretty bad about it. So did my friend. :-)

Frankly, I think it's good survival training for kids to learn how to stay out of the way of staggering drunks.

Tudamorf
11-12-2006, 06:15 PM
Frankly, I think it's good survival training for kids to learn how to stay out of the way of staggering drunks.Right. It's the victim's fault if you kill them while you're drunk. After all, you're the world's best driver, even while drunk, so it couldn't be your impairment. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

Klath
11-12-2006, 06:18 PM
Right. It's the victim's fault if you kill them while you're drunk. After all, you're the world's best driver, even while drunk, so it couldn't be your impairment. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>
Admit it, you had your sense of humor surgically removed at birth, didn't you?

Gunny Burlfoot
11-12-2006, 07:30 PM
It's funny, just about everyone thinks they're an above average driver. Alcohol multiplies that overconfidence exponentially. How would you feel if you ran over a child because you overestimated your driving ability as you were staggering out of that bar at 2 A.M.?

I know I am an above average driver, mainly because I learned from a near miss, and partially because of my observation of the circus of errors I observe every day to work and back. My nature to anticipate other drivers actually hurt me once more than it hurt my eternal nemesis, the idiot driver.

Years ago, this blue camero, with a star sticker on the license plate, dimly realizing his lane was ending, abruptly started merging over into my lane without so much as a glance back. I swerved to avoid him, going the only place I could go, the grass, and was forced off the road by this ****. After coming to a stop in the grass, the helpful people behind me asked if I was ok, said they saw him force me off the road, and asked if I wanted them to try to catch him, as he sped off at a high rate of speed. They never caught him, but the helpful people came back and filed a statement when the police got there.

Even though I physically avoided contact with the car, it would have been better for me and the rest of the sane drivers had I locked my arms on the wheel and let him plow into me. At least he would have gotten points on his license, possibly it would have been removed, since I had eyewitnesses to the whole event.

The way I now view the streets I ask myself of every car doing anything other than precision driving on the road:

"What can this car do that is the most absolutely insane idiotic thing they could possibly do to endanger me, and all the other cars on the road?"

Then I try to drive as if they will do it, 2 seconds ahead of when they and I will be closest in the different lanes.

How many times do you think I am disappointed in my low expectations of the rest of humanity's driving prowess?

You can never lose betting on human idiocy, especially on the roads and highways.

And, to answer your hypothetical.

A) I don't drink.
B) If I did drink, it would be in the privacy of my friends' house, or my own house, not in a bar where you pay $5.00 for an oz. of booze where you can buy it a lot cheaper at the liquor store.
C) If I did drink and I was at a bar, I would be with friends, and we would have previously arranged for a designated driver or a cab.

Disregarding all that, if for some unforeseen reason, I fatally ran over a kid, I would feel crushing remorse for 20-30 minutes during the trip home after I posted my bail. Once I arrived at my house, I would not feel anything ever again. The parents of the child might feel a little better though.

{Edit: Spelling!}

Panamah
11-13-2006, 09:56 AM
Most drivers think they're above average drivers. :p


Disregarding all that, if for some unforeseen reason, I fatally ran over a kid, I would feel crushing remorse for 20-30 minutes during the trip home after I posted my bail. Once I arrived at my house, I would not feel anything ever again. The parents of the child might feel a little better though.
Assuming you didn't do it intentionally, it was an accident, your own life should be just as valuable to you, or more, than a random child's. If it isn't... you might want to seek some counseling. And don't get married or have kids. I would hate to think of your spouse having to explain to your children that Daddy killed himself because he hit a child. It'd be devaluing your own children's future because of a stranger? That's some twisted logic.

Aidon
11-13-2006, 10:59 AM
Tuda, it is fairly obvious by now that reason is not going to make an impression on them. You migh as well give up (and be glad that they are not in a position to dictate law).

It would help if your reasons were sufficient.

The driving under influence laws recognise that a car is a thousand or so kg of potentially deadly equipment so anybody operating one better be in control. Alcohol has been observed to impair the ability to operate a vehicle safely and at the same time exaggerating the idea of ones abilities. This is a very dangerous combination. Since there is no good reason why somebody should be driving a car while being affected by alcohol it is simply prohobited to do so.
There is no meaningful reason why anybody must be allowed to drive a car while being unable to properly judge risks and having an impaired reaction speed.

The problem with what you say is it is presumptive that a persons "impaired" reaction speed and risk assessment is not still sufficient under the common standard for operating a motor vehicle.

Hell, women spend their entire driving career unable to properly judge risks and with impaired reaction speed...but we still let them drive.


There is a very good reason why people should be prevented from driving a car in that condition: there is less property damage, and less people are injured, maimed or killed.

Yes, driving while intoxicated enough to cause injury, property damage, or death should be illegal. But until you're intoxication causes such a tragedy, you should not be breaking any laws.


The conclusion is simple: banning people from driving under influence has a negliceable effect on their personal freedom compared to the very real and significant positive effect on the people who would otherwise be victims of accidents caused by drunk drivers. If 100000 people are prevented from driving while under influence on any given night then even if the chance of them causing an accident is only 1 in 10000 (and it is a lot higher than that) it would still prevent 10 accidents.

The solution is not to arbitrarily make conduct with the potential for harm illegal, but to make it so that if you drive while intoxicated and break a law, it should be an aggrevating circumstance with a stiffer penalty.

The 0.08 (or 0.05) percentage is hardly arbitrary. Studies have ended up with that number as the point where a majority of people starts showing impairing effects from alcohol. And yes, that number is unfair towards men because women tend to be affected by alcohol more strongly so they drag down the alloweable percentage for men because for practical reasons the law must put a point where somebody is considered too drunk to drive and it is impractical to tailor it legally to individual situations.

No. First of all, the law does not need to put a point where someone is considered too drunk to drive and it can be tailored to individual situations if still mandated. Field Sobriety Test.

So they come up with a percentage where (say) 90pct of the drivers starts showing negative effects on their ability to drive and use that as the cut-off point for all (the actual percentage likely is different). The percentage is also influenced by the ability to reliably test it in the field using devices like a breath analyser rather than administering a blood test (the first is not invasive and can be done by any police officer, the second requires somebody with a license to practice medicine (or at least to draw blood).

That percentage of your "non-arbitrary" measure fails to take into consideration the varying effect of alcohol on virtually every single person. Or even on any given person during different times. Its horrible, arbitrary, and devised not so much by scientific study as by political agenda.

But saying that people should be allowed to drive while under influence because they have not yet caused an accident yet is callous in the extreme.


Eri

No, its not callous...its the way right minded people with a concern for liberty should be thinking. Punish people for what they've done, not for what they might do.

Aidon
11-13-2006, 11:08 AM
Still, no one is going to hassle you for drunk driving unless you drive drunkenly. If you've got perfect control what's to worry about?

A cop short on his quota for the month will set up roadblocks, follow people from bars, pull over any youngist person on a saturday night at 2:30. They do not need you to actually be driving erratically to pull you over, check you for alcohol and arrest you.

Hell, you could be stopped at a red light and old grandma Jones, who is blind as a bat and shouldn't be driving at all, rear ends you. If you've happened to have had a couple of drinks, when the police arrive, you will be going to jail (while blind grandma Jones will get a citation).

If enforcement of these laws had stayed limited to those who were driving erratically, people like myself would have been much less irritated, but it hasn't. As with any additional power you give to the police, they've abused it, with the mandate of the people though. Because of DUI laws, the police can now essentially pull you over for any reason whatsoever. Because of the DUI laws, you can be driving perfectly well, better than Grandma Jones, in fact, and still end up going to jail through no fault of your own, because you broke no traffic law other than having one too many drinks during the game.

Panamah
11-13-2006, 12:15 PM
You live in the wrong state then. In CA cops don't have quotas and checkpoints are all preannounced. Although I can't swear they don't pull people over just because they don't like the look of you, I think I had a friend driving a beater-car pulled over once.

I do know we do a bad job of getting bad drivers off the road though. Thank god my parents had the sense to give up driving when their faculties started to go.

Vekx
11-13-2006, 01:52 PM
One thing to remember about the BAC... it can be going up.... or going down.

If you take a BAC test and pass, it doesn't mean that in 15min that you would pass again.

That is why the police will give you another BAC test at the station after you have failed the first one and were dragged in to the station. They want to see if your BAC is going up or down. If it goes up they will use the higher of the 2 in court, lol. (and they may not let you go tothe bathroom until they have that second test).

Anka
11-13-2006, 02:14 PM
Punish people for what they've done, not for what they might do.

When people behave recklessly and endanger other people you've got to ask them to stop. When they refuse to stop, you've got to do something about it. You wouldn't let a man walk into a shop and shoot a gun randomly, giving him his civil liberties until he actually hits someone. His civil liberaties are not more important than those of his potential victims.

Everyone knows drunk driving is dangerous and everyone has been warned repeatly, specifically within their driving test. Anyone who doesn't stop voluntarily needs to be stopped by the police (or another authority) to protect the rights, liberty, health, and safety of every other road user. If licensing restrictions don't stop them then a jail term does become the last resort.

Tudamorf
11-13-2006, 02:58 PM
I know I am an above average driver, mainly because I learned from a near miss, and partially because of my observation of the circus of errors I observe every day to work and back. My nature to anticipate other drivers actually hurt me once more than it hurt my eternal nemesis, the idiot driver.Everyone who has been driving for a few years can probably recount a "near miss" with some reckless or drunk driver, and drives defensively as you describe. That doesn't make you an "above average" driver.A) I don't drink.No wonder you think people should be allowed to drive drunk. You haven't <i>been</i> drunk.

Aidon
11-13-2006, 04:03 PM
When people behave recklessly and endanger other people you've got to ask them to stop. When they refuse to stop, you've got to do something about it. You wouldn't let a man walk into a shop and shoot a gun randomly, giving him his civil liberties until he actually hits someone. His civil liberaties are not more important than those of his potential victims.

Everyone knows drunk driving is dangerous and everyone has been warned repeatly, specifically within their driving test. Anyone who doesn't stop voluntarily needs to be stopped by the police (or another authority) to protect the rights, liberty, health, and safety of every other road user. If licensing restrictions don't stop them then a jail term does become the last resort.

Bad analogy.

A better analogy would be to compare the current DUI laws with laws banning guns because someone might use them in a crime. Your example, of someone waving their gun around in a store, would be analogous with the intoxicated driver who is driving erratically.

Aidon
11-13-2006, 04:07 PM
You live in the wrong state then. In CA cops don't have quotas

California has quota's like every other police force in America. Its unofficial, because the Supreme Court struck down official quotas, but they still exist off the books. If a patrol officer doesn't net enough DUI's, he isn't getting promoted.

and checkpoints are all preannounced.

I'm willing to bet that checkpoints tend to randomly spring up in South Central without preannouncement, on a whim.

Although I can't swear they don't pull people over just because they don't like the look of you, I think I had a friend driving a beater-car pulled over once.

There are places around here where everyone knows they can't drive in a beater car. The police will stop you, search you, and generally harrass you, mainly to keep you out, but if they can nail you for DUI or possession, even better. One place in my metro area got so bad the Feds came down on them. Something like 80% of their traffic stops were DWBs

Tudamorf
11-13-2006, 05:05 PM
A better analogy would be to compare the current DUI laws with laws banning guns because someone might use them in a crime.We do ban and limit gun possession, for primarily that reason. Good example.California has quota's like every other police force in America. Its unofficial, because the Supreme Court struck down official quotas, but they still exist off the books. If a patrol officer doesn't net enough DUI's, he isn't getting promoted.I have never been stopped at a checkpoint, and I have never seen random checkpoints here, even in the two most crime-ridden areas of the City. I've only heard of a few pre-announced checkpoints, and they're rare.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
11-13-2006, 05:07 PM
CALIFORNIA HAS QUOTAS!

Sorry for the caps.

Don't matter how they manifest themselves, if any reward or punishment occurs with regard to how many citations are written, that is a quota.

Anka
11-13-2006, 05:49 PM
A better analogy would be to compare the current DUI laws with laws banning guns because someone might use them in a crime. Your example, of someone waving their gun around in a store, would be analogous with the intoxicated driver who is driving erratically.

No not at all. The original analogy is 100% correct. When you get behind the wheel of a car when drunk you immediately become a threat to everyone else on the road. The car is the dangerous weapon and it is being used in a public place around innocent people without care and attention. There is no need to wait for a near miss.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
11-13-2006, 08:09 PM
When you get behind the wheel of a car when drunk you immediately become a threat to everyone else on the road.
Why do you say that?
You say that like you include everybody, but even police officers know that seasoned experienced drunk drivers can fool them because they act and can drive normal.

The car is the dangerous weapon and it is being used in a public place around innocent people without care and attention.
I will play, Would you put a loaded gun in the hands of a 15, 16, 17 year old and send them out onto the streets. We do that with cars here. And we have no laws against driving while too old either, and they are just as dangerous as any serial killer(just google santa monica pier elderly driver).

There is no need to wait for a near miss.
I say we lock up everybody in white padded rooms to keep the all safe, actually.

Anka
11-13-2006, 09:57 PM
Why do you say that?
You say that like you include everybody, but even police officers know that seasoned experienced drunk drivers can fool them because they act and can drive normal.

You mean those people who started drunk driving in their teens then kept drunk driving during adulthood until they're seasoned experienced drunk drivers? Guess how much sympathy I'd have for them when they suffer the awful humiliation of calling a cab to take them home.

I say we lock up everybody in white padded rooms to keep the all safe, actually.

Yada yada yada. I say let everyone drive on the road however they like, in any lane, in any direction, in any sort of vehicle, without indicators or brake lights. Lots of personal freedom and we can just lock up people when they cause an accident. There are probably a few drivers good enough to do that. What do you think?

Panamah
11-13-2006, 11:46 PM
Need to make our cars out of the same stuff they used to make those rubber bouncing balls.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
11-13-2006, 11:56 PM
... and we can just lock up people when they cause an accident.

First thing you said that makes any sense.

We should be locking up people if they hurt or kill others in accidents.

If there are extenuating circumstances, like drunk driving, or on pain meds, or whatever, then we should double or triple the time. And if someone dies, death penalty, obviously.

Tudamorf
11-14-2006, 12:40 AM
We should be locking up people if they hurt or kill others in accidents.Then what's the point of any traffic regulation, as Anka says? Let's just let everyone do whatever they like, and imprison or execute anyone who causes a fatal accident. Near-total anarchy, just as you libertarians like it, the consequences to society be damned.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
11-14-2006, 02:05 AM
So you think that we should not be imprisoning people when they actually cause harm to others, and lock them up when they haven't.

Make sense to me...

When I slip into my Bizzaro World teleporter.