I agree. If the person driving while intoxicated injures another or their property, make the penalty swift, harsh, and consistent.
"It is rational to have laws with harsh penalties for driving while intoxicated"
Because of what may happen? You want to take away a person's property and their freedom because of something they might do? And here you're complaining about our asset forfeiture laws. Look at you!
If you're comfortable with that (and you obviously are), then why are you objecting to penalizing drug users for something they might do? A little hypocritical, huh?
"The fundamental basis for them is that one group of people is engaging in activity that another group of people find objectionable. Once a system is in place that allows such control, tyranny is the inevitable result."
Tyranny? How does tyranny result when one group of people objects to another group of people. Tyranny results when one man (a dictator) objects to the actions of a group of people.
You've decribed a democracy.
Please, show me the post where I said anything about asset forfeiture laws. As well, this has nothing to do with what a person might do. The language we use has meaning, assigning arbitrary meaning to what is said is a pointless exercise. There is a demonstrably high risk that a person who drives while intoxicated will cause property loss, injury, or death, just as there is a demonstrably high risk that someone who fires a pistol randomly into a crowd will kill someone. The rational solution is to make swift, harsh and consistent penalties for these two acts. The irrational solution is to blame the guns or the drugs and make laws prohibiting them.
Tyranny? How does tyranny result when one group of people objects to another group of people.
I said no such thing. I said it results when the objection occurs and one of the groups enforces its will on the other. Important distinction.
Tyranny results when one man (a dictator) objects to the actions of a group of people.
Incorrect. Tyranny results when any person or group of persons enforces their will on the populace by force or coercion. The Soviet Union practiced tyranny on a regular basis. The tyranny was imposed on the populace by the communist party. There was no dictator, there was an oligarchy.
You've decribed a democracy.
See above. If you don't believe a democracy can practice tyranny, you have a lot of reading to do. In point of fact, a democracy will always result in tyranny. Recall that i suggested you do a google search on "tyranny of the majority." I will make that suggestion once again.