"And if I imbibe, drive, and hurt no one, what crime have I committed?"
You have broken the law. The law is intended to deter folks, from operating a dangerous motor vehicle, while in an impaired state.
This example applies to alcohol, and drugs, as well it should.
Are you suggesting that drunk driving not become a "crime" until the driver injures somebody? That is the implication of your comments.
Further, do you personally know somebody that has been a meth user? Folks like that are dangerous. To others, to their children, etc.
I know that I may have broken the law, but who have I hurt? The state allows me to drink and then drive. If I am operating my vehicle without weaving or other signs or impairment, what harm have I caused?
"Are you suggesting that drunk driving not become a "crime" until the driver injures somebody? That is the implication of your comments."
No. I am suggesting that until I demonstrate (by driving erratically) that I am drunk or impaired to the degree that I cannot drive, then arrest me. I have no problem with arresting people based on how they operate a vehicle. I have a real problem with checkpoints. If I had my druthers, they'd be gone tomorrow.
More people die at the hand of stupid and careless drivers than drunk drivers -- about 2 to 1. Do you have a checkpoint to check for stupid careless people? Are you gonna just let them drive until they kill someone?
Further, do you personally know somebody that has been a meth user? Folks like that are dangerous. To others, to their children, etc."
No, I don't.