Should We Abolish Drunk Driving Laws?

[mrjarrell]

Radley Balko says we'd be well served by doing so and makes the point rather well. If we allow cops to focus on impairment, rather than arbitrary numbers we'd likely see a drop in lives lost and actual dollar costs. We'd also see things like rights abusing check points disappear and that strikes me as a good thing, since they nab very few drunk drivers and usually serve to do nothing more than pad the local treasury. I do have a problem handing back a lot of discretionary power to the local cops, since much would depend on their subjective opinion on impairment. Guess there's a trade off no matter what. Regardless, good article and much to think about.

Abolish Drunk Driving Laws - Reason Magazine

 

[Expat]

Still working on a party platform that will turn off all possible voters I see.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Well, Marion County has legalized it for law enforcement, so why not?

 

[mrjarrell]

Still working on a party platform that will turn off all possible voters I see.

Radley is a small L libertarian, not a big L. Still refusing to actually read articles and make a cogent argument for your point? Or did you not have one?

 

[jbombelli]

Driving drunk should not be illegal. Killing or injuring someone because you were driving drunk should be punished SEVERELY.

 

[Vasili]

mr. bombelli i agree if the punishment can be summary execution upon proof of guilt in a court of law. no appeals.

 

[rambone]

mr. bombelli i agree if the punishment can be summary execution upon proof of guilt in a court of law. no appeals.

I don't trust the process enough to abolish appeals and provide summary executions. Sounds like something out of Judge Dredd.

 

[jbombelli]

mr. bombelli i agree if the punishment can be summary execution upon proof of guilt in a court of law. no appeals.

I'd sure hate to get Nifonged like THAT. We have an appeals process for a reason, you know. It's not just to prolong things and cost money.

I'm all for the death penalty; I just no longer trust my government enough to give it that power. The process has been abused TOO MANY times.

 

[dross]

mr. bombelli i agree if the punishment can be summary execution upon proof of guilt in a court of law. no appeals.

I'm assuming you're making such ridiculous statement to make a point. I'll extend you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't serious.

 

[Eddie]

I'm a big fan of changing laws so that we punish bad behavior rather than things like possessing something. I would rather see a system of srunk driving laws that were based on behavior (like wrecking a car) as opposed to a possession based system (% BAC in system) like we have now. Our current system focuses too much on machines and numbers and too little on actions.

 

[42769vette]

I'm a big fan of changing laws so that we punish bad behavior rather than things like possessing something. I would rather see a system of srunk driving laws that were based on behavior (like wrecking a car) as opposed to a possession based system (% BAC in system) like we have now. Our current system focuses too much on machines and numbers and too little on actions.

i have to agree with this. i think a cop who is watching a man drive is better suited to tell if he is imparred than a machine. although i can see how this would be abused aswwell so it may be no better than what we have.

plus how long will it be before somone sues saying "x leo said i was imparred because im black,hispanic,a women, white, a transvestite," the list goes on. then leo will be hesitant to bust folks that deserve it due to the backlash

 

[serpicostraight]

drinking and driving laws are nothing but the thought police at work. people get arrested for what they might do not what they did do. with that logic we should arrest everyone who has a gun including the popo because they might shoot someone or everyone with a cell phone because they might make an obscene call. the whole thing of arresting someone for what they might do not what they did do is what that whole innocent until proven guilty thing is supposed to be about. but i guess anymore thats an outdated concept.

 

[UncleMike]

I'm a big fan of changing laws so that we punish bad behavior rather than things like possessing something. I would rather see a system of srunk driving laws that were based on behavior (like wrecking a car) as opposed to a possession based system (% BAC in system) like we have now. Our current system focuses too much on machines and numbers and too little on actions.

Uhhh...... Eddie??
That means that we wait until the drunken SOB has a wreck, possibly killing someone, perhaps one of your family members, before we take action.
I doubt if the General Public would favor such an arrangement.

 

[serpicostraight]

Uhhh...... Eddie??
That means that we wait until the drunken SOB has a wreck, possibly killing someone, perhaps one of your family members, before we take action.
I doubt if the General Public would favor such an arrangement.

good point mike if they only would have got bissard earlier tragedy could have been avoided.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Google Tests Self-Driving Cars - But mass production is at least 8 years out

 

[dross]

I don't think the point is to wait unti someone has killed someone. The point is that you should have a reason to stop someone based on something they are doing. I was behind someone this morning who couldn't stay in her lane, who was going fast, then slow, and was generally driving eratically. In her case, she was on a cell phone, but her behavior was enough to get her pulled over, and then the appropriate fine could be given.

I have a huge problem with checkpoints and other fishing expeditions. They pad the stats, but do they do as much good as watching for behavior? I doubt it.

 

[lashicoN]

Uhhh...... Eddie??
That means that we wait until the drunken SOB has a wreck, possibly killing someone, perhaps one of your family members, before we take action.
I doubt if the General Public would favor such an arrangement.

Oh, I didn't know we had this mentality about things.

So people who carry firearms in public are automatically arrested upon sight, right? We don't dare wait for them to accidentally or purposefully, use it to harm others, possibly killing someone (maybe one of your family members) before we take action.
I doubt if the General Public would favor innocent until proven guilty or being treated as responsible adults who doesn't need someone to constantly tell us "uh uh, you're not responsible enough to do that." and then punish us if we disobey their tyrannical rules. Nah, Americans would never go for "freedom" or "liberty".

How do you charge someone with a crime when a crime wasn't committed? Simple - just make it a crime to be outside with "object X".

 

[Ramen]

Oh, I didn't know we had this mentality about things.

So people who carry firearms in public are automatically arrested upon sight, right? We don't dare wait for them to accidentally or purposefully, use it to harm others, possibly killing someone (maybe one of your family members) before we take action.
I doubt if the General Public would favor innocent until proven guilty or being treated as responsible adults who doesn't need someone to constantly tell us "uh uh, you're not responsible enough to do that." and then punish us if we disobey their tyrannical rules. Nah, Americans would never go for "freedom" or "liberty".

How do you charge someone with a crime when a crime wasn't committed? Simple - just make it a crime to be outside with "object X".

But...but... Cars are more dangerous than firearms!

At least until we get to the topic of gun control, then we get to use the "But firearms only purpose is to kill people!" argument.

 

[88GT]

Driving drunk should not be illegal. Killing or injuring someone because you were driving drunk should be punished SEVERELY.

If drunk driving isn't illegal, then the penalties for killing someone while drunk would simply be the penalties for killing someone. If you're okay with someone getting away with a lesser penalty because we don't have statutory criminalization of the mitigating causes, then I'm okay with de-criminalizing it too. But if it's not against the law, you can't punish someone for it.

I don't think the point is to wait unti someone has killed someone. The point is that you should have a reason to stop someone based on something they are doing. I was behind someone this morning who couldn't stay in her lane, who was going fast, then slow, and was generally driving eratically. In her case, she was on a cell phone, but her behavior was enough to get her pulled over, and then the appropriate fine could be given.

I have a huge problem with checkpoints and other fishing expeditions. They pad the stats, but do they do as much good as watching for behavior? I doubt it.

As I do. As most do, I'm sure. What I'm having a problem with is connecting the dots between our current problems with drunk driving enforcement and the idea that we have to decriminalize drunk driving in order to stop the checkpoints and other inefficient, liberty-stealing acts. I know you aren't suggesting that this is the case. But you highlighted the solution by saying we should address observable behavior so that's why I quoted your post--not because I take issue with it. There is a middle ground. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

 

[Eddie]

Uhhh...... Eddie??
That means that we wait until the drunken SOB has a wreck, possibly killing someone, perhaps one of your family members, before we take action.
I doubt if the General Public would favor such an arrangement.

Not at all, I would just like to see cases built around driving behavior as opposed to a chemical test. Show me video of a guy driving left of center and failing a field sobriety test as opposed to a stop for going 5 mph over the speed limit and a print out that says .08 BAC.