Are Freeps against police enforcing DUI laws? (interesting FReep thread)

[Mike Daniels]

Found this thread dealing with an article about the new VA DUI laws:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158565/posts

Maybe I'm reading the posts wrong but it sounds like they are screaming BS about the police cracking down on DUI's.

[tom_paine]

1. Well, in addition to molesting children, lots of Busheviks like to drink &

drive.

[LuminousX]

2. Weird

Do these guys know that this SCOTUS just ruled that you HAVE to give your name when asked by a police officer? And they are talking about egregious 4th Amendment violations? Their President wants to pack the court with more judges that don't give a squat about 4th Amendment issues.

It does seem to indicate that they feel it is their right to drive drunk.

[tandot]

3. Yes. Some freepers think it is their right to drive drunk and kill people

in the process.

They accept Bush as their hero because he had a DUI conviction. He is just like them...a brainless drunk...

[zbdent]

4. Laura did it

and the family didn't press charges.

AND THAT WAS BEFORE SHE MET W!

[noonwitch]

10. I don't think Laura was drunk when that boy was killed, just a bad driver

I don't know what the freepers problem with DUI laws is. Usually, I understand their arguments, even if I disagree, but this is one of those public safety things, and unlike guns, there's nothing in the consitution about a right to drive.

[westsidexview]

5. they must keep their voting block intact

if a crime kept them from voting, they would have issues with that. the repugs want other people in jail with criminal blemishes that disqualifies them from voting. a little too much to drink and driving is not a crime if you are a committed, connected republican. it is an indiscretion to you do what bush did so just pay a fine that is not even a percentage on your annual income. now other people drinking and driving, well put them in jail! give them a criminal record(hopefully so they can never vote again) and fine their ass so much that it is a significant percentage of their annual wage.

[texas is the reason]

6. i have to side with the freepers on this...

dui laws in this country are a joke. a bac of .10 i can see as potentially impairing, but .08 is absolutely rediculous. At .08, i am not even starting to get a buzz. When are we going to focus on the BAD DRIVERS that cause most accidents (as well as the REAL drunk drivers with >.15 or .20 bac) and leave the guy that has 2-3 drinks at dinner the hell alone? If we are going to continue the witchhunt against social drinkers who drive safely, we should also crack down on radios, road maps, fast food, cell phones, bad moods, and crying children- all sources of distraction and yes, impairment, that pose just as much risk as me driving home from a bar with a bac of .08.

[Mandate My Ass]

7. DUI is a big cash cow

and they're going to milk it for all it's worth.

[Lisa0825]

11. I completely agree.

[Kelvin Mace]

16. Whether you feel the buzz or not...

it has been demonstrated that your reflexes are impaired at .08.

I'll ask the same thing I ask anyone making this argument. Is a drink worth living the rest of your life knowing you maimed or killed someone? If not, don't drink and drive.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for folks who drink and drive. It is not to much to ask that people make arrangements to not drive when they drink.

Also, how many people get busted on a .08? I searched my local news paper for the last few years and couldn't find a single instance. By the time you come to the cops attention you are way past .08.

While there are not specific laws against "driving while distracted" (though some states have laws about cell phones), if you cause an accident because of a distraction, you will be cited and face posible criminal/civil sanction.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org
Distrusting the Government Since 1984

[gmaki]

18. That is immaterial

The only thing that matters is can it be shown that people with BAC of .08 cause more accidents than people with no or lower alcohol. I don't think that can be shown.

It is quite possible that .08 actually makes the situation worse. How many drivers over .10 are going by un-cited while the police are busy testing, arresting and doing the paperwork on a .08 driver?

[Kelvin Mace]

19. Again....

a check of my local paper covering an area of around a million people didn't turn up a single arrest for a .08 BAC over the last three years. I doubt many people get busted on a .08 *unless* they are in an accident or do something else to call the police's attention to them.

The law is based on the scientific fact that *most* people's reflexes become impaired when their blood alcohol reaches .08. Some people are fine, some people are slightly impaired, some are majorly impaired. You look at the average and act accordingly.

Again, is the drink worth the risk of living your life with someone's blood on your hands? How much effort does it take to have a designated driver?

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org
Distrusting the Government Since 1984

[texas is the reason]

20. so you want an example, eh?...

i know a guy who was arrested for DUI, and then blew .081..... it was me two years ago! i dont wany to get into details, but i was pulled over for something entirely unrelated by a member of the "dui enforcement" team. I guess i must have pissed him off (and after i was arrested i am sure i did- i said plenty!) because he kept asking if i had been drinking, and then proceeded to give me taped soberiety tests (which i passed with flying colors). he said i failed, and i was arrested anyway, at which point i blew the whopping .081. He then filed a police report filled with wall to wall lies that completely contradicted the evidence on the videotape of my tests, and then, after 4 motions to compel the state to produce the videotape that would have exonerated me and implicated the arresting officar for perjury, they come back and say that the videotape was ACCIDENTLY TAPED OVER IN THE EVIDENCE ROOM!!!! so, there's one example..
anyways, in regard to your statements- i would ask you- do you listen to the radio when you drive? do you ever hold a conversation with a friend while driving? if so, a victim's blood may just as easily be on your hands. What if someone just sucks at driving and shouldn't even be driving to begin with- it is a skill, and we cannot assume that everyone is competent to do it well. I would personally rather ride with mario andretti or dale earnhardt jr. after they had a few beers than with many, many other drivers who may be sober as the day they were born. I can think of a few friends that come to mind..
so i guess my point is this- there will always be people who drink varying amounts of alcohol. there will always be driving, and some amount of drivers will die each year, no matter what we do. Why don't we have laws that state that after consuming one beer, you cannot drive for the next two or three days, becaues some trace amount of alcohol will be be in your system, "impairing" you. And why do we even have parking lots in bars? we, as a society, must accept a certain amount of risk with driving, which will always be there. but we should only tolerate substantial incursions into our private lives and our personal freedoms if they will result in substantially increased safety. A balance must be struck, and that balance is not .08. And finally, let's not forget that many, many, many more people die as a result of inept drivers who lack coordination or often common sense than as a result of a marginally intoxicated driver between .08 and .10 or so.

[denverbill]

8. Amazing. 3000 deaths from 9-11, 17,000/year from alcohol.

Same reaction they have to gun deaths.

3000 American deaths on 9-11 means we should erase the Bill of Rights, spend billions beefing up security, embark on a neverending crusade against terrorism, invade two countries and impose new leaders, and nuke Mecca and Medina.

17000 American deaths PER YEAR from alcohol, and they don't even want to enforce drunk driving laws.

I guess terrorists should just get drunk and kill people while driving and then the freeps wouldn't have a problem with it.

[Ezlivin]

9. Watch out for H.R. 3922!

There is a new law wending its way through Congress that will permit officers to do roadside blood, urine and saliva drug-testing for the metabolites of illegal drugs.

In short, this means that if you smoked a joint on Friday, you could be arrested for DUI on your Monday morning drive to work.

More Information

[frylock]

12. kick for h.r. 3922..

get high last week? You better not drive this week.

[Roaming]

13. I didn't waste my time going to this thread, but one thing I CAN say

about DUI laws is that I just wonder if .08 is REALLY enough to make someone so "toasted" they couldn't safely operate a car. I think this law may ensnaring a lot of basically safe drivers, when the real crackdowns should come on the habitual drunks who are blowing .20 etc.

[sendero]

14. Don't worry...

... you won't find many here who appreciate that point of view.

Leftists are all about civil liberties until it's not one of their pet causes, then they don't give a rat's ass.

The fact is, a teenager on his first drink is probably a menace at .04, but an experienced regular drink is not that impaired at .08.

But the law has to use a simple rule.

[PurityOfEssence]

15. Conservatism is Selfishness; why should anyone bother ME?

Hypocrisy's also a hallmark of the condition, too; there always seem to be reasons to clamp down on and restrict the actions of others, but one's own actions are sacred.

This fits. Selfish, sociopathic behavior is just fine. They're all big blustering tough guys; they can handle their likker.

[northzax]

17. Frankly, I think the DUI laws are not tough enough

in this country. Driving is a privilege, not a right. The law clearly states that you cannot operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content above a certain point. by getting a license, you agree to abide by those laws. Don't like it? tough shit.