Political Evolution

[koberulz]

Okay, but see, I didn't know you wanted people thrown in jail or murdered for using tobacco or alcohol.

I don't, it was just an example.

Sounds like a personal problem.

Not at all. It's a problem with being a person. It's the same tribal mentality sports run on.

Making drunk driving illegal just leads to DUI checkpoints and the current state where they're setup for revenue with judges to rubber stamp immediate warrants allowing car searches for other state-despised substances or objects, on-site blood withdrawals and other unconstitutional shit all to get at anyone who crossed the magically legislated mendoza line in storing liquid courage.

Car searches in the US don't even need a warrant, merely PC, and that has nothing to do with drunk driving laws and everything to do with cars being mobile.

And yes, the checkpoints are wrong, and the field sobriety tests Americans insist on using are beyond stupid, but they aren't required by the existence of a drunk driving law. If someone stumbles out of a bar at 2AM, barely able to recognise his car, I'd much rather the cop who happens to be walking to his own car at the time be able to prevent the guy from driving at all. I'd imagine people are also less likely to get in cars in the first place, or be told by those accompanying them that they shouldn't, if given a concrete line rather than just being told 'you have to be able to drive competently'. Much like age of consent laws, it doesn't work for some people and can vary a great deal from person to person, but until we have a way of objectively determining 'too drunk for that particular individual to drive competently', a somewhat-arbitrary line will have to do.

[benji]

And yes, the checkpoints are wrong, and the field sobriety tests Americans insist on using are beyond stupid, but they aren't required by the existence of a drunk driving law.

Yes, they are. How else would you find drunk drivers who aren't driving recklessly? And how else will they prove someone is over the limit without drawing blood on the spot?

I'd imagine people are also less likely to get in cars in the first place, or be told by those accompanying them that they shouldn't, if given a concrete line rather than just being told 'you have to be able to drive competently'.

Alright then, let's fire things up and get making the rest of the laws we need for some people to make "proper judgement" or be told by others out of fear of punishment before they do anything.

Waiting for people to actually harm someone is just not a way to build society.

[koberulz]

How else would you find drunk drivers who aren't driving recklessly?

On top of the example of the guy stumbling out of a bar at 2AM, there would presumably be a line prior to 'driving recklessly' that constituted PC for a breathalyzer. It'd also affect what you're charged with in the event of an accident.

And how else will they prove someone is over the limit without drawing blood on the spot?

They don't have breathalyzers in the States?

Alright then, let's fire things up and get making the rest of the laws we need for some people to make "proper judgement" or be told by others out of fear of punishment before they do anything.

But again, proper judgment is inhibited by alcohol, so you've got the entire drinking population to worry about instead of just the idiots. Do reckless driving laws require someone be hurt or an accident be caused?

[benji]

Drunk driving laws are basically hate/thought crime laws. It's using the state to tack on your disapproval of the "reason" something criminal happened while lashing out with violence in a desperate attempt to try and make something preventable. If we could just stop drinking or being tired or having the sun in your eyes or seeing a woman or being late to work or being too fat to walk instead or having a heart attack or... THINK OF THE LIVES WE COULD SAVE!

Breathalyzers are borderline inadmissible anymore because the cops don't know how to keep them calibrated and because of how easily they can be made to be wrong. Plus you can refuse them. Thus why they need the judges approval to draw blood instead.

there would presumably be a line prior to 'driving recklessly' that constituted PC for a breathalyzer

You don't even need probable cause in a police state!

THINK OF THE LIVES.

[koberulz]

Plus you can refuse them. Thus why they need the judges approval to draw blood instead.

What.

We're agreed that reckless driving laws are a good idea, right? I feel that driving under the influence of something like alcohol is reckless enough in and of itself to fall under that umbrella, is all.

As far as the hate crime thing goes, what's the difference between hate crime laws and the differentiation between murder and manslaughter?

[benji]

What.

What part don't you understand?

I feel that driving under the influence of something like alcohol is reckless enough in and of itself to fall under that umbrella, is all.

What about driving while tired? Or while being distracted by the radio/music/the sun/other drivers/being late? You're really going to let people who haven't slept in 72 hours on the road? What kind of nutcase are you?

As far as the hate crime thing goes, what's the difference between hate crime laws and the differentiation between murder and manslaughter?

Is this a bit?

[koberulz]

What part don't you understand?

The part where you can refuse a non-invasive procedure, then be coerced into having a needle stuck in your arm. That's beyond absurd.

What about driving while tired? Or while being distracted by the radio/music/the sun/other drivers/being late?

Can you measure those things? Do they also have the effect of convincing the person under their influence that they're a better driver than they are?

Is this a bit?

Huh?