DUI Laws are Unnecessary

[Osborn F Enready]

Tinybear said: Interesting. Osborn's argument is different from Kame's. His argument is not that an activity should not be prohibited unless and until it actually harms someone, but that any activity (even if dangerous) should not be banned unless and until it harms some one AND if detecting such activity involves stopping/inconveniencing innocent people.

My line of reasoning is quite simple.

All individuals in the U.S. have RIGHTS, that may not be INFRINGED by law in the nation.

Stopping people randomly, violates the RIGHTS of individuals in this nation, and goes DIRECTLY against the ideal of "assumed innocence" of all individuals.

Drunk Driving is a problem that has come about by a lack of "responsibility" in adults of legal age, and young adults who gain access to alchohol illegally and are licensed to drive.

What good is a "law" if the Constitution must be violated to simply enforce that law, as with most DUI related cases?

People can debate on "whether or not a law is needed", but they often FAIL to address means and methods of CONSTITUTIONAL enforcement of that law.

Our representatives are put in office to PROTECT our rights from being infringed by law, either directly, or by MEANS OF ENFORCEMENT, a job they have failed at for the last 75+ years thanks to the bi-partisan monopoly on politics.

Tinybear said: Here I think the law has to strike a delicate balance does it not: does stopping dangerous and potentially life-threatening activity justify imposing a stop/inconvenience on innocent parties?

No. That would be akin to testing everyone on a moral code, and eliminating anyone who doesn't meet that code, much like Hitler would.

Tinybear said: On balance I think it does.

Do you believe in, respect, observe and defend your individual rights?

If so, do you not see the OBVIOUS infringement potential and history of abuse by law enforcement?

Tinybear said: Do a cost benefit analysis: the benefit is preventing lives being lost and people being maimed, families being destroyed; balanced against a small inconvenience of an innocent motorist being stopped and asked to blow for about 7 seconds into a tube (and you can minimize this occurrence by looking for motorists who are driving suspiciously/erractically on the roads; I believe that this is what usually happens in practice, am I correct?).

Tinybear, this isn't about "what is right or wrong" (subjective), this is about what is "legal or illegal" in relation to individual rights (objective).

Tinybear said: It's the same thing that happens at our airports. Foreigners who arrive at our airports are fingerprinted and photographed as part of an anti-terrorist measure. The process takes seconds. I have not heard any foreigner who has gone through this process complain about it since it was in force 3 years ago.

Flying is a luxury, and also not mandatory for a citizen of the U.S. It is a service provided by a private company or corporation. Driving has been made a necessity (in many parts of this country, thanks to city engineers assuming cheap oil, and oil powered vehicles would be the staple of not only current society, but future societies) in many parts of the country, and we drive on TAXPAYER owned roads, in PRIVATELY owned vehicles, regulated by the STATES (until the national highway administration came along and usurped THAT state power also, via holding national taxpayer monies as hostage to states that didn't operate lockstep with national demands, such as New Hampshire and their Seat-Belt Law issues AFTER creating a federal highway system and making those costs incumbent upon the states.)

If a private company or corporation wants to fingerprint, cavity search, and assume guilt of every customer they have, that is their choice. The State and Federal Government does not have that option, nor authority under the Constitution.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer So.. death.. we don't want that.

Quite right, all other things being equal.

So John is up late at a bar, chatting with women. He has quite a few drinks and after remaining unsuccessful with his pick-up line all night.. he retires to his car. The possibility of him killing someone due to his drunkenness is there regardless of laws.

The possibility of him killing someone period is there regardless of laws.

Driving an automobile carries inherent risks. Chemical substances can amplify those risks.

On another note, drunk people are usually aware of their drunkenness -- at least, that's been my experience. I would also be willing to wager that people would want to drive slower (if at all) when they are intoxicated, to compensate for their slower reaction times. However, speed laws being what they are, police officers will see slow driving as suspicious. At that point, the chances of getting a DUI are obviously greater than getting involved in a fatal car crash. So the drunk drivers speed up.

The only difference is, if there are laws prohibiting DUI.. then that's a deterrent because most people don't like having to pay tickets or go to jail or lose their licence.

All other things being equal, of course. Things are not always equal.

Please note that I am not condoning driving while intoxicated. Indeed, it would seem to me that private road-owners would not want people driving drunk on their roads. They may resort to many of the same methods for preventing it -- at least at first. The market would determine what serve as the best deterrents.

If there are no DUI laws, then this factor is nonexistent.

Tautologically true.

FACT: Driving under the influence increases your chance of taking another's life in a car accident. No amount of punishment after the fact of the other person being DEAD is going to solve anything. They're already dead now. See why prevention is a kinda neat thing?

Sorry, but this is vague. "Driving under the influence" can mean almost anything. Do you mean the legal definition (BAL >= 0.08)? Or something else?

"Increases your chance of..." is even worse. What is the (average) rate of increase in relation to BAL? Do any other variables, such as vehicle speed, factor in here?

Finally, you assume that the absence of special DUI laws necessarily leads to an increase in alcohol-related fatalities. I fail to see the necessity of this implication.

WITH DUI laws.. there exists another reason for John not to drive drunk and that lessens the chances of someone dying tonight. Maybe that's not important to some people, but I personally think that's a big deal. WITHOUT DUI laws.. that 'nuther reason for John not to drive drunk is nonexistent. REGARDLESS of DUI laws.. John may fear killing someone.

Do you admit, then, that extra-legal deterrents can and do exist?

So if having a deterrent that prevents deaths is a bad idea in your eyes, then are you just confused or are you ok with people needlessly dying?

I think the question is whether DUI laws are effective deterrents in the first place.

Kame once brought up a sorry excuse about how we don't take other measures to prevent deaths, such as cars. That is COMPLETELY ignorant of the fact that we actually kinda maybe need to drive more than we need to drink and drive at the same time. One is more necessary to society so please don't try that wimpy excuse to destroy death prevention.

Now cars are "necessary to society"? How so?

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: tinybear Interesting. Osborn's argument is different from Kame's. His argument is not that an activity should not be prohibited unless and until it actually harms someone, but that any activity (even if dangerous) should not be banned unless and until it harms some one AND if detecting such activity involves stopping/inconveniencing innocent people. Here I think the law has to strike a delicate balance does it not: does stopping dangerous and potentially life-threatening activity justify imposing a stop/inconvenience on innocent parties? On balance I think it does. Do a cost benefit analysis: the benefit is preventing lives being lost and people being maimed, families being destroyed; balanced against a small inconvenience of an innocent motorist being stopped and asked to blow for about 7 seconds into a tube (and you can minimize this occurrence by looking for motorists who are driving suspiciously/erractically on the roads; I believe that this is what usually happens in practice, am I correct?). It's the same thing that happens at our airports. Foreigners who arrive at our airports are fingerprinted and photographed as part of an anti-terrorist measure. The process takes seconds. I have not heard any foreigner who has gone through this process complain about it since it was in force 3 years ago.

I think the real question is just how much prevention really comes from special DUI laws and their according punishments.

There's also the real possibility that, in many alcohol-related car accidents, the drunk driver was not driving eratically until the accident itself. Based on your logic, there would have been no prior probable cause for charging him with a DUI.

- Rob

[tinybear]

The existence of the law in principle is one thing. The actual setting of the permitted level of alcohol is another. You can argue that the permitted level is ridiculously low and should be raised. On the other hand, I'm sure there are those who say that if we are to err, let it be on the safe side.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: tinybear The existence of the law in principle is one thing. The actual setting of the permitted level of alcohol is another. You can argue that the permitted level is ridiculously low and should be raised. On the other hand, I'm sure there are those who say that if we are to err, let it be on the safe side.

I still see no reason to allow the state to police intoxication.

[paradoxymoron]

This is like saying that workplace safety laws are redundant because a company will be charged if someone dies on the job to the company's negligence.

We have a responsibility to act in a fashion that doesn't unduly endanger other people. A DUI law controls and monitors that responsibility. It's especially important since when under the influence of alcohol, your judgement is impaired. You're no longer trusted to judge whether or not you can drive home in a fashion that won't endanger everyone else on the road. So the state makes that decision for you. I think that's reasonable in a society that tolerates alcohol.

[Kamehameha34]

This is like saying that workplace safety laws are redundant because a company will be charged if someone dies on the job to the company's negligence.

And those laws are redundant, if the employees are made aware of the unsafe conditions as they should be.

You're only going to get frustrated if you try to compare this to other scenarios.

[paradoxymoron]

Maybe you could respond to the rest of my post instead of trying to predict my emotions :)

Those laws are not redundant because they serve to make sure companies provide a safe workplace at their own expense. Without a clear and rational guideline to what consists of a safe workplace, the company could just claim they did educate the employee and that it was the employee's negligence. Or vice versa. The law serves to protect both the employee and the employer. Not redundant.

"We have a responsibility to act in a fashion that doesn't unduly endanger other people. A DUI law controls and monitors that responsibility. It's especially important since when under the influence of alcohol, your judgement is impaired. You're no longer trusted to judge whether or not you can drive home in a fashion that won't endanger everyone else on the road. So the state makes that decision for you. I think that's reasonable in a society that tolerates alcohol."

That was the rest of my post,

[Kamehameha34]

Maybe you could respond to the rest of my post instead of trying to predict my emotions

The rest of your post was built on that analogy. The analogy was dismantled, so I saw no reason to respond to the rest - just as I see no reason to respond to this quoted post in its entirity, since it's a restatement of the former.

You're going to have to go through this point by point.