Posted on 09/20/2013 8:37:09 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Disagree here as well and a DUI/DWI should be based on the individual and his/her ability and the effects that BAC has on them. Everyone is different so a .05 BAC mandated limit by a group of people (MADD) because that’s what they lobbied for is insane. It should be a fine, large, but a fine only as a result of the individual impairment not a number someone pulls out of their ass and wants it mandated.
Penalize after the fact is exactly what it should be. Based on your logic, why not lock up all “Trayvon Martin wannabes”... They’re going to commit a crime sooner or later anyway. I’m sure there’s a group out there that would like to lobby for that as well.
What about DUI/DWI on a bicycle, lawnmower, horse etc? It’s insane what states and local governments are doing. Where does it end?
Laws are the result of someone getting hurt, scorned or their just pissed and want to get back at someone. They bitch to their congressman and rally their cause and then we’re all screwed. Some laws are obviously good some are just pathetic i.e. just about everything congress does.
Listen to yourself. Mandating a 20 mph limit? Is a drunk going to pay attention to that?
Ban people from drivers licenses? People drive without them all the time.
So those are your rules. Fine. What penalty do you propose when a driver breaks the speed limit 6-10 times? How many times do yu catch a person without a drivers license behind the wheel before ramping up the penalty?
Interesting place to bump this thread.
bump
They were all ridiculous ways we could make things safer. You claim imposing a DUI limit makes us safer, and therefore it is worth the loss of our liberty to jail a person for having a certain percentage of alcohol in their blood while they are in a car, even if they have not broken any traffic laws or hurt anybody. And you are correct, a person with some alcohol is more dangerous than that same person with no alcohol, but a person just under each limit is no safer than a person just over each limit either.
But I would argue that making the speed limit 20 would make things SAFER than the DUI law. Fewer people would be in accidents than with the DUI law. But I assume you would not support a 20 mph limit, because you would say that is too great a burden on our liberty for the benefit of saving those lives.
My point is that we all draw lines at where we will allow liberty to kill people. So while I’m happy to argue where that line should be drawn, I reject the “holier than thou” attitude that some people adopt about a specific DUI limit. They all fight for their liberty at the expense of dead people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.