Hear me out. What precisely is being criminalized by our laws against drinking and driving? Not bad driving, not destruction of property, not the taking of human life; the crime is having the wrong substance in your blood.
What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary and contingent on the judgment of cops. Without the government's Breathalyzer there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law. We can do informal calculations in our head, based on our weight and the amount of alcohol we have had over time, but at best these will be estimates. We have to wait for the government to administer a test to tell us whether or not we are criminals. That's not the way law is supposed to work.
>"But anon, drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises when you drink!"
The answer to this is simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis. This is why the campaign against racial profiling has intuitive plausibility to many people: surely a person shouldn't be hounded solely because some demographic groups have higher crime rates than others. Government should be preventing and punishing crimes themselves, not probabilities and propensities. Neither, then, should we have profile drinkers, which assumes that just because a person has had a few he is automatically a danger.
A sizeable number of people leaving a bar or a restaurant would probably qualify as DUI and there is no way for the police to know unless they are tipped off by a swerving car or reckless driving. So the question becomes: why not punish the swerving or recklessness and leave the alcohol out of it?
>>75678805
Lol no
Leave the shit posting to me friendo
>>75678805
In principal, I agree with you. The dangers of drunk driving are the same dangers as impaired driving. Whether the impairment is from drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, old age, or any number of other factors it should be treated the same. This will never happen though for political reasons.
Do you think running around randomly firing a gun should be legal as long as you don't hit anyone?
>>75680001
Not an argument.
>>75680096
You're right. It was a question.
>>75678805
"I don't know what 'prevention' is, the post."
>>75678805
No. Terrible points, not even worth an arguement. Driving while impaired is illegal for any substance or physical condition.
>>75678805
It's not illegal to drive drunk, it's illegal to drive drunk on PUBLIC roads.
Feel free to get wasted and drive around on your property all you like.
>>75678805
Are you fucking drunk?
>The answer to this is simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities
>government
>free society
Sounds like sovereign citizen shit.
> itt an alcoholic tries to justify drinking and driving
someone pass the peanuts and kekerjack.
>>75678805
This post is proof libertarianism is cancer and denies objectivity to its very core.
>>75680001
The fucking dindus in the cities did until the bullets would fall from the sky in another part of town and fuck shit up.
Fixing problems in the reactionary sense shows the signs of a true imbecile because it proves that a person can't critically work an issue down to its fundamental base and see things as preventable but only as a direct insult to themselves.
>>75681049
>retard says retarded thing
>other retard comes in just to reply "haha he must be a political party I don't affiliate with!"
>/pol/
>>75681139
>>75678805
This also got me thinking: is this some sort of elaborate post where you can switch alcohol and DUI with gun ownership and murders?
>>75678805
>The answer to this is simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities.
In this case they don't. Driving drunk means your reaction time is lowered.
>why not punish the swerving or recklessness and leave the alcohol out of it?
They do that too.
inb4 this guy got his car taken away for drinking and driving and decides to shitpost because he's mad
>>75678805
It's one step towards thought crime. "You might be a shitty driver when drunk and you MIGHT cause damage, so we're going to arrest you".
Me and my girlfriend go to the bar 5 nights a week, and if I'm willing to get on my motorcycle after downing a few pitchers of piss beer, that's on ME. Not the government.
I can't even begin to see this train of logic. You are gravely endangering other's life by driving intoxicated. That is just a fact. Your rights end where the other person's begin and the the right to life is the most pure right known to man.
>>75678805
COPYPASTA
t. oldfag
>>75681813
And on the family you kill?
Part of living in the civilized world is taking some responsibility for public good and safety. Everybody wants to live in the first world but nobody wants to abide by the social contract.
>>75681813
The problem is that if you crash there is an almost 100% chance you will cause some other kind of collateral damage.
>>75678805
Move to Wisconsin, you don't get a felony your first time here.
>>75681813
Oh for fucks sake you ARE a shittier driver after you have enjoyed a mind altering substance and this isn't your private beef with your government, this is endangering others safety too. Go drive drunk on your own land all you want but dont endanger others.
Ffs dui's should be shot on sight. No fucking wasting public money on trial or anything, just a logfile of the breathalyzer test.
DUI's shouldn't exist, it should be replaced by what it actually is, attempted murder. One count for every single person you drive by.
>>75682499
Shit, seriously? What kind of message is that sending out...
>>75682723
Fucking this.
>but waah govt is opressing meee
>they wont let me drive drunk around other peopleee stop opressing meeeeee
>>75682864
It sends the message that we're a state that really loves our drinking. We're the only state that's like that, though. I know older people with like 8 or 9 DUIs because they got them before the laws were as tough on it as they are now.
>>75682499
or second (I believe that changed recently however) and prior to like 1994 they'd disappear after 7 years
>>75681813
Is it possible to ride a motorcycle while drunk lol?
From what I recall from my dirtbike-riding days in my youth balance is important when riding a motorcycle, and balance is one of the first things affected by alcohol consumption.
>>75678805
If you tried for your license while drunk, you would fail the test. When you drink, your driving ability is worse than the standard that the government sets to be allowed to drive.
>>75683403
I remember when I took the test the lady gave me shit over not checking my mirrors often enough. She said that I should check them every two seconds or some ridiculous amount like that.
Who even does that? Every fuckin' two seconds. Your eyes would be darting all over the place all the time. The most important thing while driving IMO is paying attention to what is IN FRONT OF YOU. You know, where you're actually fucking traveling.
I still remember that shit even though I took the test over 10 years ago. "You should check your mirrors every two seconds!" Get real.
>>75681539
kek
>>75682249
>Your rights end where the other person's begin
okay, and, his rights don't extend to your behavior in public. so you just agreed with OP.
>>75683661
Yeah that shit was really annoying. Here in Austria you always have to do the 3-s glance (not sure how to translate it), which means you have to take a look at the reverse mirror, the outside mirror and over your shoulders before you indicate and then once again before you change lanes.
But you really have to move your head clearly, so that they can see that you really looked, which is ridiculous because obviously that takes far to much time.
>>75680001
anyone or anyone's property, yes, obviously.
the only thing that should stop someone from doing that is their conscience and their mores.
when you replace morality with the state, you get degeneracy. when you don't, you get a sink-or-swim society that culls the unstable, and those who are unable to calculate the risks involved in their actions with great precision.
this breeds stronger wills, stronger armies, and stronger economies.
the rest of you want a nanny state because you were raised by single mothers.
>>75678805
Why don't we just execute everyone with a slightest alcohol percentile in blood on spot?
We wouldn't have to put up with retarded threads or faggots like OP.
>>75678805
I get that this is b8, shitty b8 but b8 nontheless, but....
> the crime is having the wrong substance in your blood.
No, you had it right with
>bad driving, destruction of property, the taking of human life;
>Without the government's Breathalyzer there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law. We can do informal calculations in our head, based on our weight and the amount of alcohol we have had over time, but at best these will be estimates. We have to wait for the government to administer a test to tell us whether or not we are criminals.
Or, you could maybe
PLAN NOT TO DRINK AND DRIVE,
catch a cab, book an uber - literally hundreds of options OTHER than getting behind the wheel when you've been drinking.
>government in a free society should not deal in probabilities.
Death and destruction is not a probability.
>why not punish the swerving or recklessness and leave the alcohol out of it?
Due to most sane, responsible adults don't aimlessly swerve or drive recklessly when they're sober.
Here's hoping it's just you that you wipeout/ maim/kill or injure next time you don't have the forethought to plan your night out.
>>75681813
Looking forward to the sad weepy greentext about how you killed your girlfriend but it was somehow the da jooz, niggerz or govmints fault.
>>75678805
Makes perfect sense to me. I hate getting caught.
>>75686200
>Calls my post "bait"
>Proceeds to write a lengthy rebuttal
Why do people do this lol?
