[Nuc1]

Driving is as much a privilege as riding a horse was in the past. For most it is absolutely vital. It is interesting how quickly we lovers of freedom tow the statest propaganda line whenever emotional subject matter is involved.

[sauropod]

Indeed.

[chrisser]

It is interesting how quickly we lovers of freedom tow the statest propaganda line whenever emotional subject matter is involved

Some dead white guy once said something about trading liberty for security that would seem to apply.

I'm absolutely against drunk driving.

I'm also absolutely against the random detention of otherwise law abiding citizens by the state.

If you can justify it for drunk driving, then you can justify it for anything. Heck, lets just put random checkpoints everywhere. We can test for drugs, alchohol, verify you paid your taxes and your child support, make sure you aren't on any terrorist watch lists, verify you have no outstanding parking tickets. Oh, and we'll check your vehicle for moving violations too.

It'll only take an hour out of your day every once in awhile, a small price to pay for your safety, Comrade.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

It’s all part of the national suicide we’re committing. The concept of “police checkpoints” should make every free man’s skin crawl. But they don’t. Most people are more than willing to trade off their liberty for the illusion of security these ineffective blockades provide them.

It all started with seatbelt laws. Once we accepted that indefensible infringement, we were going to accept anything.

[LuvFreeRepublic]

There is nothing emotional about my statement. We are given a divers license and when it is given, we are expected to follow the rules that maximize the safety of all drivers. You know, stop at red lights, speed limits, not driving impaired, etc. These rules and others are currently in place. Our Constitution does not afford those that do not like the rules to simply disobey them. Also, it is well documented that alcohol and drugs impair ones ability. "You" getting drunk and being on the road may also infringe on my right to life, liberty and the pursue of happiness. Not a tough choice for me and nothing emotional about it. I like my life and I especially like the life of my kids. No one needs to drink and drive. Everyone is free to get $hit-faced anytime they want, just don't drive.

[BobL]

“Driving is as much a privilege as riding a horse was in the past. For most it is absolutely vital. It is interesting how quickly we lovers of freedom tow the statest propaganda line whenever emotional subject matter is involved. “

Well stated. Like it or not, when you have tons of steel and glass moving at 100 feet per second, people will die. As someone else pointed out, these checkpoints are simply cash-cows for the cities, given the 0.08 standard (even lower if they can come up with other evidence). They are also easy work for the police, much easier than, say patrolling an area and trying to find criminals. As to saving lives, I have a HELL OF A LOT MORE FEAR of some young women driving and texting at the same time when I’m just trying to get home from work (which I see WAY too much of now, and always BLAST my horn at them every time), than some testosterone-teen driving with a 0.08 at 1 AM on a Friday night...but guess who’s getting their lives ruined, and guess who’s ruining other lives.

Conservatives like to think that they’re rational, but once the (orchestrated, in many cases) tugs at the heartstrings start, they typically buckle like most others.

[Theophilus]

Driving is as much a privilege as riding a horse was in the past. For most it is absolutely vital. It is interesting how quickly we lovers of freedom tow the statist propaganda line whenever emotional subject matter is involved.

Why would driving be "privilege" as opposed to a "right"? Does anyone have the power to arbitrarily or whimsically deprive you of your right to drive sans the due process of law? It's true that you must have a license, but can't it be said that you have a right to a license to drive which is only a trivial distinction?