DUI Laws are Unnecessary

[Kamehameha34]

This is where we disagree. I, and the law, consider your motivations and the causes of the incident to be as important as the incident itself.

Then it's a good thing we're debating that law, otherwise the law's contradiction to my argument would mean something.

If you ran into a fence to avoid hitting a child who ran across the road, I'm likely not to charge you at all. You'll still have to pay for the damage, but there won't be a citation issued. But if you ran into the fence because you were under the influence of a perception-altering substance, then you are in violation of the law that states it's illegal to operate a motor vehicle in such a condition. That is a crime in itself, and the charge is DUI.

As I've said, the act of driving carelessly lends the driver to be at fault for the damage he causes. There's no need to differentiate driving carelessly while sober and driving carelessly while drunk.

The court has the right to ask, "would the incident have even occurred had the defendant not been intoxicated?"

Which would determine if the driver is at fault. If the answer is no, then there needn't be an additional charge for driving intoxicated.

[Jack]

I see no logical progression to your opinion.

[Kamehameha34]

It's all very simple.

A law should be used to prevent crime based on punishing individuals for committing crime, not for engaging in behaviors that could eventually lead to committing a crime.

As such, drunk drivers who run other drivers off the road should be held accountable for that, under the pretense of reckless driving. The same is true for someone who causes the accident while talking on their cell phone.

When the cause of an accident is a loss of faculties, you shouldn't punish specific channels in which faculties are lost.


Yes, a drunk driver is more responsible for an accident they cause than someone swerving to miss a child, but so are all people who carelessly cede control of their faculties. DUIs are an unneeded regulation of behavior.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: The Decider I never argued "the law says so, neener-neener." I argue the law is good as an incentive not to drink and drive, and therefore prevent needless death and injury. Laws against running traffic lights are good for the same reason.

That begs the question: Are these laws good as incentives? If so, how so?

I also asked for constitutional arguments against such laws, and have yet to see any.

I have not argued for or against the constitutionality of such laws.

Such traffic lights would be next to meaningless under a "voluntary" compliance "guideline." So the laws are good.

How would they be "next to meaningless"? If a person runs a red light and subsequently crashes into another car, who do you think is at fault?

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Chris the Chees You are only likely going to get pulled over and breathalised if you are driving in a manner which suggests it is necessary to check.

That's not necessarily true. Have you heard of DUI checkpoints?

If you are driving drunk enough to get pulled over, then the comparison between waving a gun around is apt. You are a danger and you should find your self in trouble of at the very least under examination.

Where is the line between "threat" and "non-threat", here?

On another note, what is the difference in results between, e.g., swerving while sober and swerving while drunk?

By removing the restrictions driving while intoxicated all that will happen is that unncecessary road deaths will occur due to unsafe driving a direct result of driving intoxicated.

Are you saying that, if the legal restrictions were removed, that there would be absolutely no incentives whatsoever against driving while intoxicated?

To suggest that laws are not put in place to be preventative is just plain nonsense. If laws were not designed to be preventative, why do you suppose that they come supported by punishment.

I don't think that's Kame's point. Rather, I think he's arguing that laws should not be preventative in the first place. Of course, that begs the question: Can laws be preventative in terms of results (i.e., not in terms of intent)?

It is a simple fact, alcohol results in dangerous and negligent driving, this can be supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence from a massive range of studies.

Yes. I don't think anyone will dispute this.

Dangerous driving is illegal, thus DUI is illegal and if you are caught you should be stripped of your licence.

Is driving while intoxicated qualitatively different from other forms of dangerous driving?

I see it as an agreement, you are given a licence after proving a competence to drive. Having applied for and been granted that licence you are permitted to drive in a uniform manner dictated to attempt to insure a relatively high degree of saftey for your self and other road users. If you act in an unnecessary way which threatens to increase risk other road users then you are breaking that agreement. Driving intoxicated is dangerous, it is just plain negligence and if you are foolish and selfish enough to do it and are caught you thoroughly diserve to have your right to drive revoked as you have abused that right.

That's all fair enough, but if you are otherwise caught driving dangerously, shouldn't the same consequences apply?

Indeed, the very call to reduce or remove DUI laws is simply an excuse to allow selfish people to disregard everyone elses right to relative saftey. Any such calls should be shouted down as the folly which it undoubtedly is.

Basically, I think one of the issues here is whether driving while drunk (or otherwise intoxicated) is substantially different from other forms of dangerous driving. I understand that the law treats it so -- I'm questioning whether the law is correct.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: The Decider One need not cause physical harm to commit a crime.

In legal terms, that is often correct today. Do you consider legality to equal morality? If not, then you have a different standard for "crime" than the law does.

The mere act of driving drunk on publicly funded highways threatens public safety and should be illegal.

That begs the question: What is "public safety"?

Nonsense. Driving drunk is itself a threat to public safety and a crime. The penalties are much less than vehicular manslaughter, making both laws quite different and not "double jeopardy."

Then one cannot argue that removing DUI laws (and their concordant punishments) would diminish the ability to convict those who are guilty of vehicular manslaughter.

We simply disagree on the whether "public threat" deserves criminal sanction.

We may also disagree as to what constitutes a "public threat".

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Isherwood Kam, you probably know I'm not a supporter of redundant laws, hate crimes for example. But in this case the law is taking into account extenuating, aggravating circumstances. It considers erratic driving (which isn't exactly a violation, the laws are more specific...weaving, unlawful lane changes, failure to signal, etc.) as an infraction. But to willfully engage in behavior known to reduce one's ability to drive (drinking, partaking of drugs-legal or illegal) is an aggravating circumstance, and the law increases the penalties for such behavior.

Well done. However, I would like to ask a question. Why must there be separate laws for driving while intoxicated? Could not other traffic laws contain harsher penalties if the offender is found to be intoxicated?

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Isherwood If the driver, even if blitzed, can maintain their concentration enough to drive properly, then in most cases they'll never be cited because their inebriated state will never be detected. But in too many cases, their condition leads to a loss of life, frequently not their own. That's what the state wishes to eliminate.

Question: Has the state made any progress in eliminating this loss of life?

- Rob

[tinybear]

You guys are approaching this issue from the wrong perspective. See, here's the deal: We are permitted to drive on the state's roads and highways provided we pass certain exams, wear corrective lenses if our eyesight is impaired AND not drive whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. Driving whilst in breach of these conditions is punishable by imprisonment. It's kinda like a 'social contract' we enter into with the state, get it? :)

[Praxius]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 One's ability to drive is no business for the state, until it starts to interfere with others on the road.

This clearly proves your age and that you don't have a license.... Unless you can understand the laws to motor vehicles and know why they are there, you don't deserve a license.....

Once again, any Driving Educational Program you plan on taking will tell you that driving is not a right..... it is indeed directly the State's responsibility to check your ability to drive.... if not, there wouldn't be licenses to begin with.... the State wouldn't bother to put money into the roads, they wouldn't enforce the laws they put into place.

If someone can be legally intoxicated and maintain control of their motor functions, then why charge them with a crime?

There is a set amount of alcohol you are allowed in your system before you are considdered above the legal limit... this is everywhere.... you can have probably one beer.... and still drive home.... usually above one beer, depending on where you live, you are begining to get close to that legal limit.

This is also why police when they pull you over, they make you do tests to check your co-ordination and ability to drive.... if you fail this, you are drunk and not able to drive.... if you refuse, then you are hauled in and basically guilty anyways......

What you don't understand are the laws and why they are in place.... you also don't seem to understand the tests and proceedures police officers perform before they make any decisions......

You make it sound like if you have one beer, even if you got great co-ordination, they'll haul you off..... which isn't the case.

Next time please look up the laws and how they actually work.... and unless you're old enough to get tested, get your own lisence and drive yourself.... you have only a partial amount of the information you require for this debate.

[Praxius]

Quote by: tinybear You guys are approaching this issue from the wrong perspective. See, here's the deal: We are permitted to drive on the state's roads and highways provided we pass certain exams, wear corrective lenses if our eyesight is impaired AND not drive whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. Driving whilst in breach of these conditions is punishable by imprisonment. It's kinda like a 'social contract' we enter into with the state, get it? :)

Exactly... you sign your forms when you get your license, you take your tests, you sign your name on the license, and therefore you agree to all the rules and laws of the road that you have been taught.... if you disagree with any of them, or do not keep to those laws and regulations.... tough.... say goodbye to your license.

You're trying to argue whether DUI laws are useless or not.... and you clearly don't understand the laws..... even when I explained them to you, as typical, you continue as if the information wasn't provided..... in one ear and out the other.....

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: tinybear You guys are approaching this issue from the wrong perspective. See, here's the deal: We are permitted to drive on the state's roads and highways provided we pass certain exams, wear corrective lenses if our eyesight is impaired AND not drive whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. Driving whilst in breach of these conditions is punishable by imprisonment. It's kinda like a 'social contract' we enter into with the state, get it? :)

Yeah, it's not like we still have to pay those taxes if we don't agree with this "contract".

[Praxius]

Quote by: Autolykos Question: Has the state made any progress in eliminating this loss of life? - Rob

Well where I live, the laws have been pretty dam slack imo.... where someone has had multiple convictions being DUI, and they get a few phrobations, a few house arrests, and yet they keep their license for some reason, right up until they are finally jailed for a death.

The laws are to prevent more people from drinking and driving..... if someone drinks, drives and kills someone..... you throw them in jail and you make sure they never get a license again... in many cases in the past I have read and learned, they never learn their lessons most of the time until they finally kill someone or they are in jail.......

If you don't punnish them for the crime they commited, then they'll contiue to do it......

What else do you guys propose? Pull the erratic driver over..... find that their piss loaded drunk.... but hey.... since they didn't hit anybody, just give them a warning, and send them on their way? Sure.... and instead of taking that danger off the street when you had the chance, 5 mins down the road, there he or she is, wrapped around a telephone pole, or with some body lodged into the hood of their car........

*tisk tisk* Still drinker..... Come on.... seriously..... everybody knows the laws are there for a reason..... everybody knows not to drink and drive.... most who are arguing to remove the law either don't have a license at the moment, or don't drink and drive to begin with, so why do you care in the first place?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tinybear You guys are approaching this issue from the wrong perspective. See, here's the deal: We are permitted to drive on the state's roads and highways provided we pass certain exams, wear corrective lenses if our eyesight is impaired AND not drive whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. Driving whilst in breach of these conditions is punishable by imprisonment. It's kinda like a 'social contract' we enter into with the state, get it? :)

No. You are the one approaching this from the worng angle. Sure, the State wants to enter into contracts now that the law has been perverted beyond recognition, but even then they have a history of not honoring contracts with the people. ( Think constitution.) Ironically, my government still honors contracts with the now defunked Soviet Union. ( SALT Treaties. )


The problem arrose long before the "drinking, and driving contract". When we lost the ability to confront our accuser, we lost the basic premise of how the legal system was supposed to work to protect us as citizens.


No matter how you attempt to frame this debate, that is the crux of the issue on this side of the fence. We, as citizens, have lost the protection that our constitution, and BIll of Rights were supposed to guarantee.

[Kamehameha34]

Once again, any Driving Educational Program you plan on taking will tell you that driving is not a right..... it is indeed directly the State's responsibility to check your ability to drive.... if not, there wouldn't be licenses to begin with.... the State wouldn't bother to put money into the roads, they wouldn't enforce the laws they put into place.

You're restating the law. Perhaps you don't understand that the argument is against that law?

There is a set amount of alcohol you are allowed in your system before you are considdered above the legal limit.

Again, that's what's being debated.

This is also why police when they pull you over, they make you do tests to check your co-ordination and ability to drive.... if you fail this, you are drunk and not able to drive.... if you refuse, then you are hauled in and basically guilty anyways......

Immaterial. I know how it works - I'm not an idiot.

You still don't understand what the debate is about. Namely, driving recklessly while drunk shouldn't be any more punishable than driving recklessly alone.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Yeah, it's not like we still have to pay those taxes if we don't agree with this "contract".

Do you still use public transportation? Do you still walk along the sidewalks? Do you still use crosswalks? All apart of the taxes you are talking about..... so if you use the bus, or you use the subway.... or you use anything that the government put in place for your ability to use, expect to pay those taxes.....

You can't just pick and choose where your taxes goto when it comes to the roads.....

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Praxius Do you still use public transportation? Do you still walk along the sidewalks? Do you still use crosswalks? All apart of the taxes you are talking about..... so if you use the bus, or you use the subway.... or you use anything that the government put in place for your ability to use, expect to pay those taxes..... You can't just pick and choose where your taxes goto when it comes to the roads.....

That's exactly my point. The taxes we pay go towards everything, including the roads that are apparently a "privilege".

[tinybear]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Yeah, it's not like we still have to pay those taxes if we don't agree with this "contract".

Yep. You & I have little choice as far as taxes are concerned. For example if I don't use public health care or social secutity, I still pay the taxes. If I never visit a National Park in my life, I still pay the taxes. If I don't set foot in a public library, I still pay the taxes....etc.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You still don't understand what the debate is about. Namely, driving recklessly while drunk shouldn't be any more punishable than driving recklessly alone.

I've already explained my stance on that point in the previous page.....

Vehicular Manslaughter, I believe you used for a comparison, is not the same as DUI.....

As it goes for reckless Driving and Endangerment, those are usually done under the person's sober ability and by their choice, adding a more deliberate action to the crime..... DUI is not the same as this, and has it's own factors that seperate it from other laws:

Reckless Driving Most states carry laws that prohibit drivers from operating a vehicle in a way that shows a "reckless" or "willful" disregard for the safety of other people, including other drivers and pedestrians. In some states, the violation is called "reckless driving", while other states may use the terms "careless driving" or "dangerous driving" to describe the same violation. Some state traffic laws dictate that certain acts automatically qualify as "reckless driving", including: • Driving 25 miles per hour (or more) over the posted speed limit • Racing another vehicle • Trying to elude a police officer • On a two-lane highway, passing another vehicle when visibility of oncoming traffic is limited

DUI - The Basics In every state, it is a crime for a driver to operate a vehicle while impaired by the effects of alcohol or drugs. The specific offense may be called driving under the influence (DUI), driving while intoxicated (DWI), operating under the influence (OUI), and even operating a motor vehicle intoxicated (OMVI). Whatever the specific title, DUI laws make it unlawful for a person to operate a car, truck, motorcycle, or commercial vehicle if: • The driver's ability to safely operate the vehicle is impaired by the effects of alcohol, illegal drugs, prescribed medications such as painkillers, or even over-the-counter medications such as antihistamines; or • The driver is intoxicated at a level above established DUI standards, such as blood-alcohol concentration (BAC). Field Sobriety and Chemical Tests When a law enforcement officer makes a vehicle stop and suspects that the driver may be intoxicated, the officer will conduct a "field sobriety" test on the driver, and may ask for his or her consent to some form of chemical test for intoxication. Field sobriety tests usually involve a police officer asking a driver to perform a number of tasks that assess any impairment of the person's physical or cognitive ability. Examples of field sobriety tests include having the driver walk a straight line, heel to toe; having he or she recite the alphabet backwards; and the officer's use of the "horizontal gaze nystagmus" (eye and penlight) test. Chemical tests can be conducted during the vehicle stop, using a Breathalyzer that measures a driver's blood-alcohol concentration (BAC), or at a hospital, where urine and blood tests can be performed. Many states allow a driver suspected of DUI to choose which type of chemical test is administered. Refusing a Chemical Test: "Implied Consent" Laws All states have "implied consent" laws that require vehicle drivers to submit to some form of chemical test, such as breath, blood, or urine testing, if suspected of DUI. The logic behind such laws is that, by assuming the privilege of driving a vehicle on state roads and highways, drivers have effectively given their consent to DUI testing when a police officer reasonably believes the driver is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If a driver refuses to submit to such testing, implied consent laws carry penalties such as mandatory suspension of a driver's license, usually for six months to a year. Often, license sanctions for test refusal are more harsh than those imposed after DUI test failure. In most states a driver's refusal to submit to a chemical test may be used to enhance the penalties imposed if he or she is eventually convicted for DUI.

These are extracted from US Laws to help reduce any confusion between Canadian and your laws.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: tinybear Yep. You & I have little choice as far as taxes are concerned. For example if I don't use public health care or social secutity, I still pay the taxes. If I never visit a National Park in my life, I still pay the taxes. If I don't set foot in a public library, I still pay the taxes....etc.

Correct, so the day the government makes road taxes optional, I'll give credence to your claim that driving is a privilege.