Should We Abolish Drunk Driving Laws?

[UncleMike]

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.

I guess I'm "old school" when it comes to the question of DUI stops.
I never participated in a checkpoint stop.
Whenever I made a DUI stop it was after I had sufficient Probable Cause to believe that the driver was impaired. When I was a "lil baby Cop" the nearest Breathalyzer was thirty five miles away. It wasn't time effective to leave town for several hours to administer the test, so I relied on other physical criteria to determine impairment. The downside to that was, there was no "scientific" evidence to back up the Officers observations.
I never lost a case but other Officers did.

 

[Eddie]

I guess I'm "old school" when it comes to the question of DUI stops.
I never participated in a checkpoint stop.
Whenever I made a DUI stop it was after I had sufficient Probable Cause to believe that the driver was impaired. When I was a "lil baby Cop" the nearest Breathalyzer was thirty five miles away. It wasn't time effective to leave town for several hours to administer the test, so I relied on other physical criteria to determine impairment. The downside to that was, there was no "scientific" evidence to back up the Officers observations.
I never lost a case but other Officers did.

That is what I would like to see it go back to. Get rid of the science experiments and expert witnesses. Use dash cams and testimony. Problems I see with the current OWI laws/culture:

-There seems to be an emphasis on volume. More OWI arrests=better. Officers spend tons of time looking for OWI arrests and (I believe) ignore other valid forms of policing.

-the expert witnesses involved to support/refute the science make trials way too expensive for both sides

-the money involved that goes to pay for equipment and extra patrols skews the system, encouraging arrest instead of honest evaluation

-officers rely too heavily on the chemical test to make their case and relegate other valid evidence to the checklist of observed criteria that is part of giving the breath test as opposed to just writing a report about what they did and why they did it.

As a footnote, I love police reports that start out "I was on routine patrol when...". I once pointed out to a prosecutor who was defending one officer's practice of sitting on the local tavern and waiting on people to leave that "I was on routine patrol when..." sounds a lot like the statements taken from defendants that start out "I wasn't doing anything when...". Most cops know "I wasn't doing anything when..." is a typical prelude to some untruth.

 

[Vasili]

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.

nope.

more like a reduction to absurdity.

which there's more than enough of in this system.

 

[Jack Ryan]

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

I prefer it not be my son, daughter, wife, or any one else's life that put's drunk who drives drunk on probation or restricted license. A drunk is a drunk is a drunk what ever long winded pile of crap they want to blather on about before they get to the one fact that matters, ... over the limit on the test..., They are drunks, they are a danger to sober society and to their selves. Not that I care if they want to have a drunk driver day at the 500 track and let all the drunks kill each other a few times a year.

Drunk + driving = go to jail and it can't be for long enough.

I really don't much care what the drunks and alkies think or want not about their good they think they drive drunk, what they think about being loaded or about their suffering the DT's because their stupid stinking drunken fuddled mind is incapable of recognizing closing time Saturday night and they'll have to do their boozing at the higher restaurant per drink prices.

A drunk is a drunk is a drunk, losing his LTC or even better being refuse it in the first place he's still a stinking useless drunk. On his drunk cycle, in a car, a truck or a plane he's still a drunk. Funny how you guys think a guy sucking down a beer in 30 minutes at lunch and suddenly if you think he's a union member and boom you want him burnt with fire, fired, what ever stupid idea you come up with but if it's your brother in law then suddenly there is a thread about "How Can I help my son's, boss's drunk sister get a license to carry a weapon" or How can I help the low life drunk who killed some one get a gun?

A drunk is a drunk. If he's driving he's subject to being stopped and checked for drunk driving. If he's driving and he meets the state's standards for drunk driving he's a drunk. JAIL him. It's irrelevant if he's a union member, congressman, your brother in law, your little boy's boss, or if he's going down to the Goodwill store to donate Lucky Charms to under priveledge unicorns.

A drunk is a drunk. What ever.

 

[dom1104]

Really. Drunk Driving Laws? Really?

With everything going on in the world and at home right now...

my vote would be... I could honestly care less.

Its like saying " Should we put childproof locks on the kitchen cupboards hunny?" while your house is burning to the ground.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I prefer it not be my son, daughter, wife, or any one else's life that put's drunk who drives drunk on probation or restricted license. A drunk is a drunk is a drunk what ever long winded pile of crap they want to blather on about before they get to the one fact that matters, ... over the limit on the test..., They are drunks, they are a danger to sober society and to their selves. Not that I care if they want to have a drunk driver day at the 500 track and let all the drunks kill each other a few times a year.

Drunk + driving = go to jail and it can't be for long enough.

I really don't much care what the drunks and alkies think or want not about their good they think they drive drunk, what they think about being loaded or about their suffering the DT's because their stupid stinking drunken fuddled mind is incapable of recognising closing time Saturday night and they'll have to do their boozing at the higher resturaunt per drink prices.

A drunk is a drunk is a drunk, losing his LTC or even better being refuse it in the first place he's still a stinking useless drunk. On his drunk cycle, in a car, a truck or a plane he's still a drunk. Funny how you guys think a guy sucking down a beer in 30 minutes at lunch and suddenly if you think he's a union member and boom you want him burnt with fire, fired, what ever stupid idea you come up with but if it's your brother in law then suddenly theres a thread about "How Can I help my son's, boss's drunk sister get a license to carry a weapon" or How can I help the low life drunk who killed some one get a gun?

A drunk is a drunk. If he's driving he's subject to being stopped and checked for drunk driving. If he's driving and he meets the state's standards for drunk driving he's a drunk. JAIL him. It's irrelevant if he's a union member, congressman, your brother in law, your little boy's boss, or if he's going down to the Goodwill store to donate Lucky Charms to underpriveledge unicorns.

A drunk is a drunk. What ever.

I'm confused. What exactly is a drunk?

If you want to drive on your own property, drink as much as you want. If you want to drive on public streets and highways, follow the rules. The rules say no drinky no drivey. It's really simple.

 

[jbombelli]

I prefer it not be my son, daughter, wife, or any one else's life that put's drunk who drives drunk on probation or restricted license. A drunk is a drunk is a drunk what ever long winded pile of crap they want to blather on about before they get to the one fact that matters, ... over the limit on the test..., They are drunks, they are a danger to sober society and to their selves. Not that I care if they want to have a drunk driver day at the 500 track and let all the drunks kill each other a few times a year.

Drunk + driving = go to jail and it can't be for long enough.

I really don't much care what the drunks and alkies think or want not about their good they think they drive drunk, what they think about being loaded or about their suffering the DT's because their stupid stinking drunken fuddled mind is incapable of recognising closing time Saturday night and they'll have to do their boozing at the higher resturaunt per drink prices.

A drunk is a drunk is a drunk, losing his LTC or even better being refuse it in the first place he's still a stinking useless drunk. On his drunk cycle, in a car, a truck or a plane he's still a drunk. Funny how you guys think a guy sucking down a beer in 30 minutes at lunch and suddenly if you think he's a union member and boom you want him burnt with fire, fired, what ever stupid idea you come up with but if it's your brother in law then suddenly theres a thread about "How Can I help my son's, boss's drunk sister get a license to carry a weapon" or How can I help the low life drunk who killed some one get a gun?

A drunk is a drunk. If he's driving he's subject to being stopped and checked for drunk driving. If he's driving and he meets the state's standards for drunk driving he's a drunk. JAIL him. It's irrelevant if he's a union member, congressman, your brother in law, your little boy's boss, or if he's going down to the Goodwill store to donate Lucky Charms to underpriveledge unicorns.

A drunk is a drunk. What ever.

Wiith the grammatical errors and rambling nature of that rant, I have to ask... Were you drunk when you typed that?

 

[ruger17hmr]

Why is this even an issue? LOL

Does anyone really want to legalize driving under the influence?

 

[dross]

Why is this even an issue? LOL

Does anyone really want to legalize driving under the influence?

I can only assume you didn't bother to read many of the posts above. It's an issue because it's public policy, which the political process can change, or increase, or do away with completely.

Quite a few people have tried to explain why it's an issue to them, and how they think it should change. If you read those explanations it will answer your question, whether or not you agree with their position.

 

[Expat]

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?

I am sorry if you were unable to understand the point that I was trying to make. I am sure the fault is all my own. The libertarians/Libertarians seem to want to compete in the free market place of ideas. They wish to present their ideas and convert or convince people to their way of looking at things. But some of the ideas you come up with are just going to turn the average voter out there, completely off. In my experience once most people form an opinion of a group, it is pretty hard to ever change their mind. You already have the burden in the general populace of being the pot head group. I am just not sure that being the group that wants to legalize drunk driving is an improvement over being the pot heads. I know that you can make your deeply principled argument that in theory sound good. But if you ever want to attract more than a couple percentage points in an election you might want to consider the message that you are making and how it is heard by the masses.

 

[dross]

I am sorry if you were unable to understand the point that I was trying to make. I am sure the fault is all my own. The libertarians/Libertarians seem to want to compete in the free market place of ideas. They wish to present their ideas and convert or convince people to their way of looking at things. But some of the ideas you come up with are just going to turn the average voter out there, completely off. In my experience once most people form an opinion of a group, it is pretty hard to ever change their mind. You already have the burden in the general populace of being the pot head group. I am just not sure that being the group that wants to legalize drunk driving is an improvement over being the pot heads. I know that you can make your deeply principled argument that in theory sound good. But if you ever want to attract more than a couple percentage points in an election you might want to consider the message that you are making and how it is heard by the masses.

But that's the strength of the Libertarian Party's argument. It's the only political party out there that is entirely consistent in its platform except for the unabashed socialist parties.

That said, the consistency is also the reason it will forever be marginalized.

As a small "L" libertarian, I agree with legalizing all recreational drugs, prostitution, and lots of other radical things. I vote Republican because they have a seat at the table, and I can in some small way through my vote influence that party. The Dems have completely rejected libertarian values, the Republicans only partially so.

To paraphrase a line from a great movie, based on an even greater series of books, I must choose between the lesser of two weevils.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

I guess I'm "old school" when it comes to the question of DUI stops.
I never participated in a checkpoint stop.
Whenever I made a DUI stop it was after I had sufficient Probable Cause to believe that the driver was impaired. When I was a "lil baby Cop" the nearest Breathalyzer was thirty five miles away. It wasn't time effective to leave town for several hours to administer the test, so I relied on other physical criteria to determine impairment. The downside to that was, there was no "scientific" evidence to back up the Officers observations.
I never lost a case but other Officers did.

Mike, I'm not laughing at you nor poking fun at you, but your comments remind me of one of Jerry Clower's (comedian) routines about a country boy speeding and the cop that stopped him.

The crux of the joke was: He could tell how fast the country boy was going by how far down the Johnson grass bowed down along side the road when the guy passed.

 

[level.eleven]

I am sorry if you were unable to understand the point that I was trying to make. I am sure the fault is all my own. The libertarians/Libertarians seem to want to compete in the free market place of ideas. They wish to present their ideas and convert or convince people to their way of looking at things. But some of the ideas you come up with are just going to turn the average voter out there, completely off. In my experience once most people form an opinion of a group, it is pretty hard to ever change their mind. You already have the burden in the general populace of being the pot head group. I am just not sure that being the group that wants to legalize drunk driving is an improvement over being the pot heads. I know that you can make your deeply principled argument that in theory sound good. But if you ever want to attract more than a couple percentage points in an election you might want to consider the message that you are making and how it is heard by the masses.

You still aren't up to speed on the conversation. No one wants to legalize drunk driving.

Step #1 - Read article
Step #2 - Comment

 

[malern28us]

Driving isnt a "right." You break the law and drive drunk you lose the ability to drive. The system isnt perfect but I would gladly have some system in place than nothing. I do believe that there has to be a better way than check points and police judgement. I don't have the solution though. I do like the idea if you are ever caught driving under the influence that you would have to "take a breath test" that shows no alcohol in your system before you can drive your car. You still get to drive.

 

[Eddie]

Driving isnt a "right." You break the law and drive drunk you lose the ability to drive. The system isnt perfect but I would gladly have some system in place than nothing. I do believe that there has to be a better way than check points and police judgement. I don't have the solution though. I do like the idea if you are ever caught driving under the influence that you would have to "take a breath test" that shows no alcohol in your system before you can drive your car. You still get to drive.

Some good points in the OP's article are:

Checkpoints use a lot of manpower and don't net that many OWI's. They tend towards an excuse to write lots of infraction citations to generate revenue.

Focus on a magic number for OWI takes the focus away from other forms of bad driving behavior.

The gist of the article is to get rid of the number system and enforce it more like reckless driving.

 

[mrjarrell]

I am sorry if you were unable to understand the point that I was trying to make. I am sure the fault is all my own. The libertarians/Libertarians seem to want to compete in the free market place of ideas. They wish to present their ideas and convert or convince people to their way of looking at things. But some of the ideas you come up with are just going to turn the average voter out there, completely off. In my experience once most people form an opinion of a group, it is pretty hard to ever change their mind. You already have the burden in the general populace of being the pot head group. I am just not sure that being the group that wants to legalize drunk driving is an improvement over being the pot heads. I know that you can make your deeply principled argument that in theory sound good. But if you ever want to attract more than a couple percentage points in an election you might want to consider the message that you are making and how it is heard by the masses.

Perhaps libertarians and Libertarians should parrot the same big government, anti-liberty message as the two sides of the Boot On Your Neck Party. If folks aren't interested in a rational message then the message isn't the problem, it's the listener.

You really should take the time to read the article, tho. Nowhere is legalising drunk driving mentioned. In fact the article makes a point of mentioning upping the ante for impaired driving, which you would have known, had you actually read the article.

 

[Ramen]

You still aren't up to speed on the conversation. No one wants to legalize drunk driving.

Step #1 - Read article
Step #2 - Comment

He does have a point that how something is worded is extremely important.

The title of this thread is "Should we abolish Drunk Driving Laws?" I would say that most people would probably answer, "NO!". They don't want people to drive drunk. They look at the title, and say "Crazy libertarians, they want to make drunk driving legal."

If the thread was titled "Lets punish all forms of reckless driving, not just drunk driving" more people would probably read the article, the argument, and agree that swerving all over the road while talking on the phone, eating, and telling the four children in the back seat to behave is a lot more dangerous than the guy who had four beers over two hours and is focused entirely on the road to get home.

Then you might get them to agree that an arbitrary 0.08 BAC is not a good indicator of danger.

At the least you would probably get them to agree that checkpoints are wrong, even if the BAC level remained at 0.08.

 

[UncleMike]

Mike, I'm not laughing at you nor poking fun at you, but your comments remind me of one of Jerry Clower's (comedian) routines about a country boy speeding and the cop that stopped him.

The crux of the joke was: He could tell how fast the country boy was going by how far down the Johnson grass bowed down along side the road when the guy passed.

I wasn't that bad.
However when I was a Rookie there was an Officer in another City who swore in Court that he could tell that a driver was speeding by how fast the hub caps were spinning.
(This was before hand held Doppler Radar units became available.)
The judge didn't buy it.

 

[rambone]

You already have the burden in the general populace of being the pot head group. I am just not sure that being the group that wants to legalize drunk driving is an improvement over being the pot heads. I know that you can make your deeply principled argument that in theory sound good. But if you ever want to attract more than a couple percentage points in an election you might want to consider the message that you are making and how it is heard by the masses.

That's like saying not to oppose welfare because the masses love their welfare. Don't promote liberty because the sheeple don't understand it. Don't fight for gun rights because the yuppie voters in your district hate you for it. Don't lower taxes because the lazy slugs who draw off it will throw a fit. Now lose those deeply principled arguments and appeal to the government-loving masses.

Now as far as I can tell, this is just a discussion based on an opinion article, not representing any party's platform. Its a chance to share ideas and think about subjects you have never considered before. Its a time for people to come out and justify their expensive, intrusive, welfare-warfare-police-nanny state, and for others to remind you that things went along just fine during the times when liberty still existed in America.

A drunk is a drunk is a drunk, losing his LTC or even better being refuse it in the first place he's still a stinking useless drunk. On his drunk cycle, in a car, a truck or a plane he's still a drunk. Funny how you guys think a guy sucking down a beer in 30 minutes at lunch and suddenly if you think he's a union member and boom you want him burnt with fire, fired, what ever stupid idea you come up with but if it's your brother in law then suddenly theres a thread about "How Can I help my son's, boss's drunk sister get a license to carry a weapon" or How can I help the low life drunk who killed some one get a gun?

Ah, a cheerful mix of gun control, prohibition, and union apologizing. I'd rep you but I am all out of negative rep.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Wiith the grammatical errors and rambling nature of that rant, I have to ask... Were you drunk when you typed that?

I got that spell checked and fixed a couple of missing spaces Miss jbombelli.

Will you be spell checking the rest of the forum now or is that just something you do when you get frustrated trying to rationalize drunk driving?