Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : 5spl -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LPS5 who wrote (460)	1/18/2003 10:43:04 AM
From: Dominick	Respond to of 2534

If you are legally drunk, how could that be a crime? ggg

To: LPS5 who wrote (460)	1/18/2003 10:50:30 AM
From: dannobee	Respond to of 2534

Usually the BA content is measured to confirm the officer's hypothesis that the person was driving under the influence, be it alcohol, prescribed drugs, or some other substance. The (alleged) drunk driver's actions were the impetus for further investigation by the officer. A BA content over the legal limit merely confirms his hunch. Certainly some people can appear to drive safely while legally drunk. Do they slip through the cracks? Certainly. But unless we have some way to measure the BA of every driver, before he turns the ignition key [which, IMHO, would be a travesty beyond compare, and violates the premise of innocent until proven guilty;that is, we must prove our innocence before we get in the car], we're stuck with the system we have. On the other hand, driving a car is a "privilige," not a right, and as such, we are subject to a different set of laws and values as those granted in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

To: LPS5 who wrote (460)	1/18/2003 1:16:28 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2534

tough call. From a libertarian standpoint, the argument makes sense. From a practical standpoint it does not. But perhaps the answer is somewhere in between. Instead of ciminalizing drunk driving, we should simply remove privileges. Make sober driving a condition of having a driver's license. If you are caught driving while drunk, your driver's license is revoked permanently. No crime is recorded on your record, no jail time, just permanent loss of privilege. I bet that would have more of a deterrent effect than having to pay a fine and spend two nights in jail.

To: LPS5 who wrote (460)	1/18/2003 3:43:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2534

I do think that a reasonable argument could be made that driving on public roads while drunk is reckless endangerment. However the lower they set the blood alcohol content required for a drunk driving conviction the weaker that argument becomes. Tim

To: LPS5 who wrote (460)	1/19/2003 6:30:03 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Respond to of 2534

LPS5, Rockwell's proposal of "legalized drunk driving" has already been tried, from a practical standpoint. Tough drunk driving laws are really a fairly recent phenomena. Throughout all of the decades since the invention of mass-produced automobiles, the penalties have been simple fines and only in particularly grievous cases would charges such as manslaughter be filed. DUI charges have more historically easily been reduced into reckless driving charges with significantly small penalties. A turnaround came about with the MADD and its related groups somewhere in the 80s. These movements gained more groundswell momentum in the 90s, pressing upon legislators that some serious action needed to be taken. In 2000, the US Department of Transportation reported 16,653 alcohol-related traffic fatalities. 1990 was 22,084. Of all traffic fatalities, alcohol was involved in 50% of 1990's, and 40% of those belonging to 2000. In essence, the people spoke, and it helped. Above and beyond what Rockwell has to say about Libertarian principles, there is nothing better than the People speaking and improving their lot. Those are just some basic facts of the matter. Strictly as an "opinion", Rockwell's piece comes off sounding like he either just got popped for a DUI and didn't like his sentence, or that he thinks "The Government" is being tyrannical just because they have a hard-on to oppress people as a general goal in life. I think the government sure does some silly things but often, any perceived "tyranny" is an accidental by-product of inefficiency rather than an outright goal. And what he perceives as tyranny in this article isn't that at all. -MrB

To: LPS5 who wrote (460)	1/19/2003 6:55:43 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2534

Here, Rockwell already starts a bit far. I place Clinton amongst our nation's very worst presidents, but that doesn't mean that every single twitch of his finger was amongst history's most terrible moments. Even very bad presidents — and bad CEO's — can occasionally do something that's a "good thing" for the Company: "Clinton has signed a bill passed by Congress that orders the states to adopt new, more onerous drunk-driving standards or face a loss of highway funds. That’s right: the old highway extortion trick. Sure enough, states are already working to pass new, tighter laws against Driving Under the Influence, responding as expected to the feds’ ransom note." Rockwell is going farther off the deep end here: "What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood… The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property." If drunk drivers were only killing themselves and wrecking a few cars, then the Libertarian principle of personal responsibility seems right. But, drunk drivers kill many other unrelated pedestrians, other (sober) drivers, and their own passengers (inebriated or otherwise). The public got sick of it and pressured legislators to do something about the killing of their own kids. As of 2000, alcohol is a factor in 8% of overall accidents, but accounts for 40% of fatal accidents. The People are speaking up and the legislators are responding. I don't have a problem with helping to prevent someone's death. Rockwell is worried about the impact on his "liberty" to endanger people when he goes out for a few pints. Rockwell gives the implications of alcohol upon drivers short shrift in suggesting that it's better to only prosecute a dead pedestrian's killer rather than to enact some larger effort that the pedestrian might actually get across the street alive. -MrB

To: LPS5 who wrote (460)	1/19/2003 7:43:10 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2534

Masks don't impair judgment. All factors equal, a bank robber in a mask or without has the same reaction time, the same distance and speed evaluation ability. Rockwell is using a false argument. Alcohol does indeed change these parameters. The guy behind a mask is still sober, in this scenario. "Bank robbers may tend to wear masks, but the crime they commit has nothing to do with the mask. In the same way, drunk drivers cause accidents but so do sober drivers, and many drunk drivers cause no accidents at all. The law should focus on violations of person and property, not scientific oddities like blood content." Yes, sober drivers cause accidents, too, as Rockwell mentions. Also, as Rockwell mentions, there are some drinking drivers who operate just fine. Rockwell's schtick about not dealing in probabilities is silly. Every day you get on the road is, in itself, a probability. How do you, personally, want to share that probability? Do you, personally, want to share that probability with stupid sober and stupid drunk drivers, or would you rather reduce, at least, the stupid drunk ones so you can better concentrate on avoiding entanglements the stupid sober ones? What makes your life a little easier? Or, if you take Rockwell's over-extension of Libertarian personal responsibility, is it your own darn fault if you're croaked because you didn't effectively simultaneously deal with both whilst crossing the street? Rockwell might hit you in that crosswalk. From the tone of his article, he may be drunk and free to do it. Of course, he'll face his consequences, being the personally responsible Libertarian as he espouses to be. *Afterwards*, being the key point. <g>

To: LPS5 who wrote (460)	1/19/2003 11:56:00 AM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2534

government in a free society should not deal in probabilities I think this phrase sums up my attitude toward the matter. Taken to the extreme, you'd have the "pre-crime" mindset of the movie "Minority Report". Drug testing? Roadblocks? Not long ago, these would have been unthinkable in a free society. Just another example of the Nanny Government taking away rights that traditionally belonged to the states.