Because fatalities per 100 million miles driven have remained fairly constant for as long as records have been kept, (even before the current DWI laws were conceived) and will continue to do so.
Another reason is that we have always had laws against murder, manslaughter, reckless endangerment, etc., etc.
We don't need a subset for DWI.
Then there is the damage done to the U.S. Constitution
"The DUI Exception to the Constitution"
A long read, but worth it. I could go on and on, but that's enough for now.
Sorry for your loss.
Interesting read. Is that the position of most here - random checkpoints are unconstitutional so we should throw out all DWI laws?
I agree we can throw them out if someone driving recklessly and endangering others on public roads can be arrested and charged with that crime.
For now I will continue to call state troopers when I see a drunk on the roads. There are other options, but I don't have my conceal carry permit yet...
"I hope to convince you in the next hour, some of you, that the greatest single threat to our freedoms, the freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights, is not from Iraq or Iran. I don’t think it’s from North Korea. I don’t think it’s from the extremists of the Muslim world. The threat, as it has always been throughout history, is internal: It is from within. But I do not think it is from the American Communist party or extremists on the right. I hope to convince a few of you that the greatest single threat to our freedoms today comes from a group consisting largely of American housewives. They call themselves the Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD.
This is the guy you quote and who's argument you emulate?
WOW.
A Berkley and UCLA graduate.
"I do not, by the way, for a moment suggest that we should legalize drunk driving". HE says.
He just refuses to accept any way to measure it, thus removing any way to prosecute it.
"Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a very effective, very well financed organization"
Oppose what there is and make millions doing so ( isn't that what he claims MADD is so foul for doing) all the while admitting he doesn't have any better Idea. That is very telling imho.
I would offer their financing comes as a result of the HUGE scope of this issue and how many people really DO want to see alcohol induced deaths and injuries curtailed.
"In California, our Supreme Court, which is slightly to the right of the U.S. Supreme Court" He Says.
Ok Sure. And I suppose the 9th circuit is to the right of George W Bush too.
"Do I have an answer? No, I don’t." He Says.
Imagine that.
"Immediate seizure of the license in 48 of the states today. On the spot. Justice administered by the police officer. No judge. No jury. You are presumed guilty. Your license is confiscated and you are given a notice of suspension. What happened to the presumption of innocence"
I suppose he would say it is wrong to remove the passport of a person that shows some evidence of terrorism that is enough to qualify charging him and hold it until he reaches trial. His position there is laughable. You will not have your license taken based on no evidence whatsoever. OH WAIT, I guess you must prove guilt without being allowed to investigate in any way prior to charging someone. that is what I see in his opposition about this one.
I see a bunch of what 'if's' in his posting, except of course the 'what if' as it pertains to someone DYING! Somehow that FACT is disregarded completely.
Seems to me that practices what he preaches when he says this: ""like most zealots, have a rigid and narrow focus and are ignorant of the harm they cause to others."
But hey, you , with his aid in this posting, have totally convinced me that DUI deaths and injuries are just an overhyped Myth. I musta imagined what happened to me.It is totally an unprovable issue in any sense. No technology is allowable due to the fact it may have a margin of error. Not to mention if something better comes out, then all prior usage of said technology is nullififed. It isn't that I drank too much and chose to drive at all, it is just that the machine was in error, and my rights were violated.
I have been convinced that it is a violation of my rights to tell me I cannot get smashed (a little or alot) and go operate a motor vehicle. I have learned that I can use it however I want to with impunity. I have learned from you it is a right that noone can infringe upon, and if I infringe upon someone else's rights when I crash into them it is somehow their fault or someone else's cuz I didn't intend to harm them. Regardless of the fact I made the decision to do something that is well known to cause people harm.
Fact is, I think I'll go drink a twelve a pack right now and go riding for some kicks. If I crash or if I get caught I will just refuse a breath test,refuse sobriety tests in the field, refuse to answer questions and then hire this lawyer(providing he can practice here) to muddy the waters soooo much with claims of "what if's" and equipment being falable that no "clear" evidence can be made against me and so long as I pay a lawyer enough money I can get off!
Hey I'll pay a lawyer 5 grand to make the truth go away instead of 3 thousand dollar fine, so I can say my 'rights' have been protected, never mind everyone elses rights MINE are the ONLY ones that matter!
So much for personal responsibility Heck who needs THAT!
/sarcasm off/