[holmes]

SSSSSHHHHH Im trying to STAY in the closet their BH! Forget about coming out of it. Keep me in there!

Hey if he tells me to blow Ill tell him to wip it out.
And the smoking ban is wack. I only think its viable in apt buildings where if you set your bed on fire with a forgotten smoke I dont get burned alive in the apt above you. Thats not a great way to go.
Shit Im not into any bans actually. No bans for me! They always lead to tyranny it seems. Its truly weird the nanny state. God these control determined humanoids are beyond weirdos. Your right my cuz and I used to drive around drunk in the stix all the time. case of brew in the back cooler. Z of grass. It did help that it was the backwoods. But it did end being fun around 1985-87. Overpopulation reached the turning point of festering then I believe.

[holmes]

if you excecuted aholes after their 3rd dwi then I bet DWI will end or become so insignificant to be a non issue. its a PONZI scheme anyway to line the pockets of the biggest gang and beurocracies in America anyway. Im all for cutting these scam artists off. Ill take my chances with drunks on the road. I say see a drunk driver. Follow it and when he stops execute the fuck right then and there. if the drunk kills someone then automattically executed.

[oowolf]

Having spent the last decade walking the rural highways of Montana, I'd say about 20% of drivers are impared by 3 PM; 50% by 8PM and 80% by midinght. If the cops busted everyone who is impared and driving the economy would collapse because everyone would be in jail or stuck at home with a suspended liscense.

Believe me: Most of the people in this country are high on something most all the time.

Be sure to buckle up!

[jato]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'V')C§ 23612. Implied Consent to Chemical Test
(a) (1) (A) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. If a blood or breath test, or both, are unavailable, then paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) applies.
(B) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or urine for the purpose of determining the drug content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.
(C) The testing shall be incidental to a lawful arrest and administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable cause to believe the person was driving a motor vehicle in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.
(D) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, and (i) the suspension of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of one year,

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jato', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'V')C§ 23612. Implied Consent to Chemical Test
(a) (1) (A) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153. If a blood or breath test, or both, are unavailable, then paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) applies.
(B) A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or urine for the purpose of determining the drug content of his or her blood, if lawfully arrested for an offense allegedly committed in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.
(C) The testing shall be incidental to a lawful arrest and administered at the direction of a peace officer having reasonable cause to believe the person was driving a motor vehicle in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153.
(D) The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to, or the failure to complete, the required chemical testing will result in a fine, mandatory imprisonment if the person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, and (i) the suspension of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of one year,

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'S')o I guess it's "Wigs for everybody" then eh?

Or is there some hypothetical "kill number" where it becomes public interest?

How many bodies are needed to justify surgically removing my freedom from state management of my biochemistry?

[jato]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o... would you blow?

[Aaron]

Perhaps a different approach.

I assume you all could pretty much care less how others feel per se, & really just want people to be competent when doing dangerous stuff... like driving a car.

I don't object to operational tests which measure how capable a person is when performing specific tasks... but measuring the chemistry of my body to predict how I will behave or perform is akin to measuring any physical characteristic I might posses & legislating limitations for my condition.

It seems clear-cut when considering drunk driving.

But... where does it end?

And who decides?

Perhaps I'm too aggressive, or I carry a recessive genetic trait deemed undesirable by some people?

Tests which measure my ability to respond and reason with sufficient capacity to safely operate a motor vehicle are reasonable & justified.

But when we begin legislating based on my potential to cause harm because of a biochemical precursor... like being drunk, (or how about just being stupid?), we cross the line between civic responsibility & playing God.

Is the irresponsible moron yakking on his cell-phone any less responsible for the deaths & terrible injuries he caused than the drunk?

Of course not...

But these laws hold otherwise.

It sounds like if you could, some of you would "tailor-make" the rest of us to fit your image of perfection, and only allow that which you deemed appropriate.

Should the state test me for my aggressive tendencies & force-medicate me to correct my inappropriate aggression? Religious strife arguably causes many more deaths than drunk driving. Should the state then regulate my religious practices?

My diet?

What I feed my kids; My pets?

All these things affect everyone around me... even killing some of them.

So fine... we outlaw drunk driving. Again I ask you... where do we stop legislating based on potential? Will I "make the grade" in your brave new world, or will you toss me aside in favor of a safer, more predictable Aaron; engineered to comply?

You may indeed be "safer"... but it won't be as fun I promise you.

[basil_hayden]

Aaron

Obviously it should be risk-based, that is the most dangerous behaviors (i.e, most deaths per capita or whatever) being dealt with first and most harshly, but yes, eventually by the picture you paint, all those decisions will be made before you're born, as we discussed in the Gattaca thread.

Currently, it appears to be perception-based, moms got pissed off and went after drunk drivers, tobacco, whatever. Hopefully we can rally them to challenge our energy alternatives in the future as well. Wait until moms figure out all our food is being transformed into fuel.....

Go Soccer Moms!

BH

[MacG]

I'm all with Aaron here, and would even like to take the argument one step further. I think this Judeo-Christian obsession with revenge and punishments for victimless crimes should be abandoned altogether, and be replaced with some true responsibility. It might sound a bit extreme at first, but I things would sort themselves out after a while.

No victim - no crime. If there is a victim, the victim (or the relatives) should be compensated to such a degree that they abstain from revenge. A life is priceless, and can not be brought back if it is lost, true, but at some degree of compensation, the lust for revenge fades away. If someone is victim of an accident, and it can be shown that the accident happened because someone else was careless, the careless person should compensate the victim to some degree.

Such a thinking would cause quite some wrangling and debating in the beginning, but eventually standards would be arrived at.

The requirement for compensation could very well be taken to extremes: You cause damage, injury or death, but refuse to pay compensation? OK, your possessions will be taken from you by force. If you don't own anything of value, your organs might have some value for transplants. If you don't have insurance, you might find yourself a life-long slave to compensate for a broken neck you caused while driving intoxicated. The motivation to damage a slave is often not very high - your economic yield would be smaller from a damaged slave.

OK, this is libertarian thinking, I know, but once the logic get hold of you, it's difficult to get back to the old revenge/punishment thing. We are not gods who can decide what's "right" and "wrong" in advance. Some old blokes in a desert some 3000 years ago have had far to much influence over our thinking. Quite embarrassing when thinking about it, really.

[gg3]

Darn, I thought this was a sex topic!:-)

---

The state stops at your epidermis. "Internal freedom" means that your body and mind are yours and what goes on inside them is your business only. Your body is not stamped "Property of the State."

Arguements about the need for biological testing are red herrings.

What matters is behavior, and that's all that matters.

I once saw the cops do a field sobriety test. There was a guy passed out in a parked car, and I thought he might be in medical trouble given that he didn't look like he was merely asleep, he looked passed out. I called the cops, who came along and woke the guy up, and concluded that he was probably drunk.

They made him walk straight lines, touch his fingers to his nose, and do a bunch of other things. He stumbled around and slurred his speech, and ended up being taken away in the back of a patrol car while his car was towed. Given my interests in cognitive science, I observed closely. Later I asked a couple of questions about some of the more obscure items on the test, and the officer on the scene explained them to me, and yes they were quite clever.

Bottom line is, there was no need to take any biological samples here.

But there's more.

Go look up a company called Langley-Bowles. They make a computerised test system for detecting workplace impairment. The test is looking at perception, coordination, and cognitive skills. You stick your card in the slot and take the on-screen realtime test, which takes all of a minute. No invasion of your body or your privacy. No having to pull down your pants for the boss' surrogate. No questions about what you do on the weekends.

The test picks up all causes of impairment: illegal drugs, alcohol, sleep deprivation, after-lunch blood sugar crash, emotional upset from fight with spouse, etc. All the test is concerned with is whether you're in fit shape to, for example, operate heavy equipment.

---

My point with alll of this is, what's important is the behavior, not the cause of the behavior. If a person's coordination is trashed, they should not be behind the wheel or operating equipment or flying planes. People have to be held accountable for their actual condition, not for their choice of intoxicants. That is, you have to take responsibility for your actual condition behind the wheel: no more driving while exhausted & falling asleep, no more driving after you've had a doozy of a fight with your partner, etc.

Field sobriety tests using behavioral measures (and filmed by the camera on the patrol car) will do the trick for drivers (and will pick up non-alcohol causes such as blood sugar crash). Computerized tests will do it for employees.

You don't need to blow, suck, pee, or bleed. You do need to know yourself well enough to know when you're fit and when you're not.

[MacG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gideon', 'F')or example, by your bizarre rule, a guy could bust through the door of my house, fire 15 shots at my children, miss, and then not be charged with a crime.

Seriously man, have you even considered your own words?

[Kingcoal]

I think a little perspective is needed here. If you are reckless and drink and drive, you deserve to be caught and suffer all the consequences coming your way - I don't think that many here would argue with that.

However, here's a little story which is true and happened to a guy I know. He's from Illinois and was driving a rented car on route 80 late at night in New Jersey returning to NY from a dinner in the Poconos. He was pulled over for speeding (75 in 65 zone.) He was asked if he had been drinking and he responded that he had had a beer or two a couple of hours ago. He was asked to do sobriety tests outside of his vehicle and he failed. He was having a hard time with standing on one foot with both hands at his side. His vehicle was impounded and he was arrested and taken to the station, handcuffed to a table and asked to take a blow test. He took the test three times and passed with a .01. That level is normal for a sober person. Wally (the victim) is 62 years old.

The cops were pissed. They briefly talked about this situation, came back and told him that he was free to go, but his car was impounded and it would cost $150 to get it out at that hour. Wally paid the impound fee and high tailed it out of there.

In Wally's case, blowing saved him. What I find enlightening is the Cops reaction. They were pissed. When they do something like that, they really wish the damn breathalyzer would just cooperate and give them the evidence they need. Wally ended up with a speeding ticket plus $150 to rescue his car and about 6 hours of his time.

One thing I will say that I've been noticing about myself around this forum; I feel old. A lot of you kids just don't know what it's like out there. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's why our founding fathers were so stingy with giving the government power. They knew that most people were dumb and would give up their rights in a heartbeat when confronted with adversity.

[MacG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gideon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')our example is obviously ridiculous, and if you look at it one more time you might see it. Someone busting through the door of your house, fire 15 shots at your children but miss, is obviously causing significant emotional damage and should compensate that damage. If he is still alive.

[gg3]

Let's get over the rant mode here.

The viable libertarian principle is, the state has no control over what goes on inside your body, but the state has a valid interest in protecting people from the dangerous behaviors of others.

Thus it doesn't matter if the cause of hazardous driving is alcohol or exhaustion or an arguement with a spouse. All that matters is that the behavior is a danger to others, and all of it should be grouped together as "reckless driving."

The viable libertarian solution to that, is to simply pull people over when they're driving erratically, run a behavioral sobriety test, and if they can't pass, they pay the penalty. And the penalty has to be sufficient as to discourage impaired driving from whatever cause. And the driving test needs to include items on how to tell when you're impaired.

The Langley-Bowles machine should also be turned into consumer electronics and sold to the general public. Thus you could, if you were so motivated, carry one around with you to use as a self-test of your condition for driving, operating machinery, etc.

If the issue is dangerous driving behavior, not alcohol per se, then there will be an incentive for people to self-test, and the market will supply the means. And it would not surprise me if the accident rate in general declined.

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'D')arn, I thought this was a sex topic!:-)

[MacG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gideon', 'I') thought it was going to be about cocaine too.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', 'T')hat entire big "law enforcement" apparatus out there is just a joke. It's not about enforcing "law". It's about enforcing itself. And it happily use exaggerated hypothetical examples to do so.

[MacG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gideon', '3') it is.

I find nothing quite as sour as men who propose to be men of principle yet cannot stand by their alleged principles when challenged.

[Kingcoal]

I think that we have to remember that if you turn the clock back before the progressive movement, the US was basically "libertarian." There were few laws against what a person put into their body in private. However, if an activity you were engaged in significantly annoyed the public or was a danger to the public, then you would be arrested and charged accordingly.

The progressive movement preached the idea that humans were inherently reckless and needed to be protected against their own urges. That led to prohibition and the idea that things should be banned from legal existence for the greater good. I advocate going back to those days when a person was expected to be responsible and when they weren't, they would suffer the consequences. Today, a person's right to behave like an idiot is zealously guarded, while all his other rights are trampled on.

Edit: 70% of accidents are not alcohol related.

[holmes]

Ill take the freedom and its horrible end game over the state controlled gestapo and thought police every time.