U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Abolish All DUI Laws!
Source:
Lew Rockwell
URL Source: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10/marc-j-victor/abolish-dui-laws/
Published: Oct 28, 2015
Author: Marc J. Victor
Post Date: 2015-10-28 06:02:34 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 3143
Comments: 29
I start this article by congratulating you for having the courage to read past the scary title. Many people sadly don’t possess such intellectual courage.[1] Although you probably think I’m crazy and irresponsible for even suggesting we repeal all DUI laws, at least you are willing to invest the time necessary to learn why I suggest such a monstrously scary idea as simply abolishing all DUI laws. Additionally, I suggest we replace such DUI laws with absolutely nothing. Before I proceed with convincing you we can and should abolish all DUI laws, I invite you to ponder the concept of a paradigm shift. Because I expect to persuade you to my position, I am hoping you will then consider what other issues and concepts you ought to revisit for the purpose of evaluating other well established views you have that may also be worthy of additional reflection. Whenever I abandon one of my established beliefs in exchange for a new and different belief, I celebrate my new and improved belief about the world, and give no worry to my old incorrect and now abandoned view. I urge you to also strive to hold only correct views rather than simply seeking to justify current ones. I know what you are thinking. As a practicing criminal defense attorney for well over twenty years, I have personally represented many people who ingested too much alcohol and then irresponsibly drove their cars resulting in tragic deaths or horrible injuries to innocent motorists on our roads. It is an awful situation that is easily prevented with a taxi or a designated driver. I would be happy to never again have to represent someone in one of these tragic cases. I give lots of speeches where I strongly discourage people from consuming any alcohol at all and then driving their cars. We don’t need DUI laws to deal with any of this tragic, irresponsible, and serious criminal conduct. Indeed, although these people could be charged with DUI, many prosecutors don’t bother charging these people with DUI. People who drive drunk and kill other people are charged with either murder or manslaughter. I don’t propose repealing these criminal laws. When drunk drivers cause accidents resulting in serious injuries to other people, they get charged with aggravated felony assault. I don’t propose repealing these laws either. In short, we don’t need DUI laws to either deter or punish people who cause harm to others as a result of their irresponsible drunk driving. I suspect I have your agreement thus far. However, I know you still have concerns about the drunk driver who fortunately doesn’t kill or injure anyone else. To resolve this legitimate concern, all fifty states have enacted some version of laws against reckless driving. Generally speaking, the crime of reckless driving is when a person drives a vehicle with reckless disregard for the safety of other people or their property. As such, there is little doubt that if a drunk driver operates his or her vehicle in a way that reasonably poses a real danger to another person on the road, that person has committed the crime of reckless driving. Indeed, a driver need not be drunk at all to run afoul of the criminal reckless driving law. A driver who is too tired, physically incapable or otherwise an unsafe operator for almost any reason runs the risk of violating the reckless driving law. I don’t suggest we repeal laws against reckless driving. It’s reasonable to expect that other drivers operate their vehicles in a way that doesn’t pose a substantial risk of harm to other drivers on the road or their property. Fortunately, we have these reasonable laws in place to deter and punish such criminal conduct. To better understand why we ought to abolish all DUI laws, a better understanding of DUI law is necessary. Upon closer examination, you will easily see why DUI laws are simply much too broad, totally unnecessary, and a huge fundraiser for the state. Generally speaking, there are three main sections of DUI laws: Generally speaking, this section of DUI law makes it a crime for a driver to be impaired to the slightest degree by alcohol or any other drug. Keeping in mind that drivers possess differing skill levels of driving ability, it is easy to see why this section is grossly overbroad, completely unnecessary and even frequently entirely unjust. Imagine the safest, most prudent defensive driver in your entire state consumes a very small amount of alcohol. Now imagine that safest driver in your entire state is actually impaired to the slightest degree such that this person now becomes the second safest, most prudent defensive driver in your entire state. Pursuant to this section of DUI law, the second safest, most prudent defensive driver in your entire state is now actually guilty of DUI. In many states, this person is going to jail, subject to huge mandatory fines and will suffer a possibly career ending loss of driver’s license. If indeed this person were impaired to the point that their driving actually posed a risk of harm to another driver, the criminal laws against reckless driving would apply. However, this person is factually guilty of DUI without any showing or evidence that the driving posed any danger at all. To the contrary, this example illustrates how the second best driver in the entire state is actually guilty of DUI. We can easily eliminate this unnecessary section of DUI law without any concern at all, and we must eliminate it to avoid punishing people who are driving just fine. Generally speaking, this section of DUI law makes it a crime to simply drive a vehicle while having a blood alcohol content of 0.08% or higher either at the time of driving or within a specified period of time after driving such as two hours. There is absolutely no requirement that the driver be impaired at all. Even a driver who drives perfectly, and is not impaired at all is actually guilty of DUI simply by virtue of having a blood alcohol content of 0.08% or higher. Just like different people have differing levels of driving ability, it should come as no surprise that people are affected differently at various levels of alcohol consumption. It should be obvious that we are not all the same. That most experts claim everyone is impaired to the slightest degree by a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% is also of no consequence as illustrated by the previous section. In the final analysis, if a driver is able to operate a vehicle in a way that does not pose a reasonable risk of harm to other drivers, it is of no consequence that such person has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08%. If a driver does pose a reasonable risk to other drivers, the reckless driving statute applies and we have no need for this DUI section at all. As I previously said in the last section, we can easily eliminate this unnecessary section of DUI law without any concern at all, and we must eliminate it to avoid punishing people who are driving just fine. Different states treat this issue differently. Many states treat this variety of DUI like one of the two sections described above. For this reason, the analysis is the same as stated above. As such this section should be abolished for the same reasons as illustrated above. Many states, including Arizona where much of my practice is located, treat this issue even more foolishly than either of the two sections above. Said another way, this is the most ridiculous and unjust section in a morass of unnecessary and unjust DUI law. This section equates to a witch-hunt based mostly on irrational fears and misinformation about marijuana. Generally speaking, in several of these states, simply having a trace or barely detectable amount of an illegal drug, or even a metabolite of such illegal drug, in your system while driving amounts to a DUI. In many cases, a trace amount of the illegal drug’s metabolite can remain in the body for several weeks after consumption.[2] As with the 0.08% blood alcohol content section, even the minimal showing of slight impairment is entirely unnecessary for this DUI crime. A mere trace amount of the illegal substance, even with absolutely perfect driving and no impairment at all, is sufficient for a criminal conviction. Why anyone would conclude that simply having a trace amount of a substance in one’s body while driving perfectly fine ought to be a crime escapes me. As with the previous two DUI sections, we can easily eliminate this unnecessary section of DUI law without any concern at all, and we must eliminate it to avoid punishing people who are driving just fine. As if we needed more craziness surrounding our DUI laws, many people are unaware that a person can be guilty of DUI without any evidence of any driving at all. The state has created the concept of “actual physical control” to convict people of DUI crimes even when everyone agrees there was no driving at all. Merely sitting in a vehicle with the engine off can be enough evidence to be convicted of DUI. Moreover, a person can be guilty of DUI for simply sitting on a moped, bicycle or even a horse. It ought to be clear that our justified outrage at people who drive drunk and recklessly injure or kill others has led to the absurdly overbroad and unnecessary crime of DUI. Conclusion I drive on the roads just like you do. Speaking as a resident of the community, I share your concerns and have the same interests in deterring and punishing drunk drivers who actually cause harm or even pose a reasonable risk of harm to others. Speaking as a person who has represented probably over a thousand people accused of DUI, I can tell you DUI laws often punish good people who did not pose any real threat to others on the road. The DUI laws are entirely over broad and completely unnecessary. Still worse, they sometimes operate to ruin lives or careers or cause unnecessary hardship for people who should not have been hassled at all by the state. To be fair, many people charged with DUI indeed posed a threat to other drivers. However, those people could have also been charged with and convicted of reckless driving just as easily. If the state can’t prove to a jury that a driver was driving in a way that posed a risk of harm to anyone or their property, I don’t know why we would consider what the driver did to be a crime. As an example of the lack of rational thought accompanying the politically charged DUI laws, consider that factually weak or insufficient DUI cases are routinely pled “down” to the “less serious” crime of reckless driving. In the system, we often refer to this as the “wet reckless.” Said another way, the “more serious” DUI crime of being impaired to the slightest degree is pled “down” to the “less serious” crime of driving in a way that actually poses a risk of harm to other drivers. This is pure unadulterated foolishness. Because we have been wooed into wrongfully equating DUI laws with drunk driving related car accidents causing deaths and serious injuries, we have allowed reckless politicians to expand the criminal law into a net so broad that it catches countless innocent people unjustly disrupting their lives. Still worse, we have allowed politicians to attach mandatory jail sentences, huge mandatory fines, unnecessary license suspensions and countless other items requiring expensive fees to these ridiculous convictions. Today’s DUI laws have turned into an ever-expanding government feeding frenzy to supplement the overinflated and wasted budgets of various political subdivisions. It’s a giant rip off! I suspect the founding fathers would be disgusted we have allowed this to occur. This is why we need to repeal all DUI laws and replace them with nothing at all. If I have indeed succeeded at convincing you we ought to abolish all DUI laws and replace them with nothing, I invite you to consider why you ever believed we needed such laws in the first place. I wonder if you actually considered the issue for yourself or if you simply accepted what others concluded about DUI laws without considering the issue for yourself. I invite you to consider, or possibly re-consider, some other issues as well. Are you still supporting the horribly failed, violence promoting, totally insane war on drugs? Do you believe more government action or new government programs are the answers to today’s problems? Do you actually support peace? I know you claim you are in favor of freedom, but are you really?[3] I urge you to help change the world by starting with an honest evaluation of your own fundamental views. Notes [1] Many people have simply refused to read my previous article entitled, “Legalize Methamphetamine!” If you can’t get past the scary title, I suspect you aren’t open-minded enough to fairly consider my argument in any event. This article can be found here: http://attorneyforfreedom.com/marc-j-victor-articles-3/ Don’t be scared. [2] In Arizona, the court has recently ruled that the inactive metabolite of marijuana, which does not impair and can remain in the body for up to a month or longer, no longer supports a DUI. However, other inactive metabolites from other illegal drugs are still in question. [3] I wrote an article about this topic. I invite you to review it here. http://attorneyforfreedom.com/marc-j-victor-articles-3/ 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
DUI laws, as with just about all traffic laws, serve the purpose of generating revenue under the thinly veiled premise of "public safety." Since the loss of revenue is intolerable, the laws will never be repealed.
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Hmmm. Does that work?
Well, not in this article. Maybe the next.
That's right! We're all different. So why should my speed be limited to the same as some little old lady's? My reflexes are better. My reaction time is faster. My eyesight is sharper. So let's do away with speed limits, too.
I would imagine that Marc J. Victor, better known as dumbass, will have a different attitude when he, or one of his family is crippled or killed by some drunk driver. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
The real dangerous drunks on the road pay little heed to any DUI laws. From the article: We don’t need DUI laws to deal with any of this tragic, irresponsible, and serious criminal conduct. Indeed, although these people could be charged with DUI, many prosecutors don’t bother charging these people with DUI. People who drive drunk and kill other people are charged with either murder or manslaughter. I don’t propose repealing these criminal laws. When drunk drivers cause accidents resulting in serious injuries to other people, they get charged with aggravated felony assault. I don’t propose repealing these laws either. In short, we don’t need DUI laws to either deter or punish people who cause harm to others as a result of their irresponsible drunk driving. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Why Punish People for “Speeding”? People are individuals and some people are better at certain things than others. This includes driving. Tony Stewart is a better driver than I am. But I am a much better driver than my mother-in-law. Why should Tony Stewart be dumbed-down to my level? And why should I be dumbed-down to my mother-in-law’s? Imposing arbitrary, one-size-fits-all limits on anyone for anything is by definition unfair. Arbitrary man-made “speeding” laws based on a dumbed-down/least-common-denominator standard amount to ugly and stupid people punishing the good-looking and smart ones. The people who support such laws support anticipatory and pre-emptive punishment. That is, laws that assume something bad will happen if “x” is not punished. And which punish the “offender” as if something bad had actually happened. Even if it never did. Innocence of having caused harm is (currently) no defense. It’s not necessary for the government to produce a victim. All that’s necessary, legally speaking, is for the state to prove that “the law” was violated. Comrade Stalin would approve. As the cop slides in behind you, does your internal monologue run along the lines of, “well, yeah… I did a bad thing… I deserve this.” Or do you feel disgust, anger – and resentment? Of course. This has serious implications. Laws without a moral basis are just arbitrary rules. They have no moral force – and that makes people subjected to them feel abused. Which they have been. Meanwhile, it also makes it more difficult to deal with the relatively small number of people in society who actually do cause harm to others. If you doubt this, take a drive into a “bad” neighborhood; where are all the cops? They’re manning radar traps and safety checkpoints in the “nice” neighborhoods! Remember the “Drive 55" idiocy that lasted from about 1974 to 1995? Overnight – and for the next 20 years – it became illegal “speeding” to drive 70 when the day before it had been legal to do that and – presumably (being legal) “safe.” How does it become “unsafe” to drive 70 on the same road today that it was (apparently) “safe” to drive 70 on yesterday? In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much That was started with the idea of saving gas. But yes, it did last long after that wasn't really a concern anymore. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Indeed. My neighbor's daughter was recently in an accident with a drunk driver. Thank the Lord her infant twins were not in the car at the time. She got banged up but is alright now. Now on the article. The author must make an argument to repeal most DUI laws so he can be free to smoke weed and drive. That's pretty much the motivation. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
Well, I do not smoke weed, or even cigs. But I do occasionally partake of Kentucky Bourbon and branch water. But I have a rule: Once I have one drop, I will not get behind the wheel. If I have to go anywhere after I have had a drink, I will get my wife or one of the kids to take me. If everyone would do that, it would save a lot of lives & grief. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Yes that is most responsible. Unfortunately these laws address the increased stupidity in our society. I could wax philosophic on this but not many would care. Bottom line? In a society where we no longer have moral absolutes, and relativism is "king", we need laws to address everything. That is because everyone has their own view on right and wrong. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Yes, they do. Those that think they are only for revenue ( and some laws are ) the DUI laws are for public safety. I guess we could drop the fines & jail time, and just execute on the spot. I doubt the author would want that. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Dunno. Such would add to the author's repertoire for sensational headlines:) "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
There's nothing in the article that would lead a sane person to jump to that ridiculous conclusion. The author makes valid points. There are more than enough laws on the books to adequately punish those who cause harm to people or property while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. The DWI laws, as has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, exist only to enhance revenue for the State. Not to mention the fact that you can be found guilty of DUI even if your blood/alcohol level is ridiculously low, if you are sleeping in a parked car, or even arrested while while parked in your own driveway. It's a shame that y'all can't see the big picture here. Instances like these underscore the fact the DWI laws are NOT about keeping drivers safe, but they are simply another way for government thieves to steal from you. I thought this site was called "Liberty's Flame", but most the responses I've seen here do not reflect that. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much It's a shame that you do not see common sense on this issue. If you want to set at the house and drink yourself into a stupor, or do drugs until you pass out, I could not care less. But for you to argue that in that condition it is OK to drive a vehicle on the public highway, is ridiculous. I agree with you on a lot of issues, but on this you have your head up your ass!! I hope & pray that you & none of your family are ever the victim of a DUI driver! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Gee whiz sparky - no one is saying that drunk driving is good. For fuck's sake do you drones even read the articles past the headline before spouting your indignation? The point being made is that there are a myriad of laws that exist which already punish those who kill or injure other drivers and/or pedestrians while under the influence of alcohol. The really dangerous drunks are NOT going to be stopped by passing a law against driving drunk. Instead what this has done is make EVERYONE a suspect - DWI checkpoints being one example. They have expanded the scope of the law to the point that one cannot even consume a beer without being in fear of getting pulled over, even though your actual driving is excellent and you are not in the slightest bit impaired. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Ok let me get this straight. People are pulled over for drunk driving either on a speeding stop or sobriety check point. They are found to be drunk and somehow the state is forcing them to drink and drive to increase revenue? So either the state is causing drunks to be on the road or there is a real problem with idiots drinking alcohol and getting behind the wheel of a car. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
And that was bunch of BS... My Ranger pickup got it's best gas mileage in 5th gear at 3,000 RPM, which was right around 70-72 MPH... Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
The most dangerous rapist pay little heed to rap laws... dummy. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Deckard is like LF's very own pharmacist. He pushes more drugs than Pfizer Inc. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Got that right. But, unlike Pfizer, he doesn't include warning labels.
I have a potty mouth I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Driving at 55 MPH uses more fuel than 70. For that matter in my personal car the best mileage I get is around 77 MPH.
Having a BAC of .08 is not drunk, it is not even impaired in many cases. It is an arbitrary number pulled out of MADD's ass and accepted by willing govt hacks always hungry for revenue. My niece got a DUI with a BAC of .02.
I've heard some people make such comments. I guess it's possible newer engines are more efficient at higher speeds. However, that certainly was not argued back in the 70s. And regardless of the engine efficiency, wind resistance is much higher as the resistance is proportional to the speed squared. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Geeez - not this same old shit again For the umpteenth time - I am not pushing drugs. What I am trying to do is to point out the absurdity of your unwinnable glorious war on drugs. Once again you sheep don't bother to even consider any opinions about how we should deal with the drug problem other than the ones you have been programmed to regurgitate thanks to a lifetime of lies and propaganda fed to you by the government and MSM. Another thing - you have no concept of self-ownership, your entire existence is based on the belief that the State owns you and as such can dictate what you are allowed to ingest. The author of this piece has made completely valid points, but I doubt any of you actually took the time to read past the first few sentences. In fact I bet most of you saw the title and already decided what your indignant response was going to be even before reading any of the actual article. I don't use drugs. I don't encourage others to use them. Yet you (especially GrandIsland) automatically assume that if someone is in favor of legalizing drugs, that person MUST be a druggie and is to be considered an enemy of the state and anathema to so-called "conservatives" - those here who claim to be for freedom and personal responsibility yet when it come to the topic of drug legalization they inevitably resort to their fall back position that "we MUST keep fighting the drug war", a position that in and of itself is the very definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I know it's a stretch that the prohibitionists here will be swayed by the "freedom" argument - too many of the usual suspects here have a warped and frightening view on freedom. Basically to them - freedom is whatever the government "allows" you to do, no if's and or buts, the almighty State must be obeyed and is never wrong. I can imagine some of you back during prohibition, chanting the same mantras about booze - after all, the government has outlawed it and they are always right. The similarities between that era and now are striking - That "drug war" was exactly like the current one, a complete and total disaster. On the plus side (for bootleggers) it was the best thing that ever happened to organized crime. Alcohol became illegal and virtually overnight any manufacture, sale or distribution of alcohol became a serious crime...the downside (for those who were not criminals) is that violence rose due to the fact that legitimate alcohol industries were now taken over organized crime and were conducted entirely in illegal and violent markets. Starting to see the parallels yet? As a result, the bootleggers and other criminals prospered and criminal organizations grew. This also led to a major crime wave beginning in the 1920s and which continually increased until the end of prohibition in 1933 when (surprise, surprise!) it immediately started to reverse. After prohibition, the turf wars raged on with the Seagrams gang engaging in bloody battles with the Jack Daniels gang resulting to the deaths of thousands. Oh wait - you mean that didn't happen? At this point a sane person might conclude that prohibition (of ANY substance) is not the answer to dealing with the issue of drugs. Problem is - some of you are not sane enough to grasp that simple fact. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much MADD has been pushing for a zero tolerance policy since their inception. I think they are also among those who are pushing the government to mandate ignition interlocks where you have to blow into a device that measures your BAC before your car will be allowed to start. My niece got a DUI with a BAC of .02. Which only reinforces the fact that it's basically a revenue enhancement scam. Sleeping in your car while drunk, drinking a beer inside your car in your own driveway while listening to the radio - all have been used as reasons to arrest someone for DWI. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much The vast majority of accidents are caused by sober drivers. Who knows how many lives might have been saved if they had stopped by the bar for a few drinks, instead of immediately hitting the road to have accidents?
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
"I give lots of speeches where I strongly discourage people from consuming any alcohol at all and then driving their cars."
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
"When drunk drivers cause accidents resulting in serious injuries to other people, they get charged with aggravated felony assault. I don’t propose repealing these laws either."
#4. To: Deckard (#0)
"Just like different people have differing levels of driving ability, it should come as no surprise that people are affected differently at various levels of alcohol consumption."
#5. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
" Abolish All DUI Laws! "
#6. To: Stoner (#5)
I would imagine that Marc J. Victor, better known as dumbass, will have a different attitude when he, or one of his family is crippled or killed by some drunk driver.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#7. To: misterwhite (#4)
So why should my speed be limited to the same as some little old lady's?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#8. To: Deckard (#7)
Remember the “Drive 55" idiocy that lasted from about 1974 to 1995?
#9. To: Stoner (#5)
I would imagine that Marc J. Victor, better known as dumbass, will have a different attitude when he, or one of his family is crippled or killed by some drunk driver.
#10. To: redleghunter (#9)
"The author must make an argument to repeal most DUI laws so he can be free to smoke weed and drive."
#11. To: redleghunter, MisterWhite (#9)
" smoke weed and drive "
#12. To: Stoner (#11)
But I have a rule: Once I have one drop, I will not get behind the wheel. If I have to go anywhere after I have had a drink, I will get my wife or one of the kids to take me. If everyone would do that, it would save a lot of lives & grief
#13. To: redleghunter (#12)
" these laws address the increased stupidity in our society. "
#14. To: Stoner (#13)
I guess we could drop the fines & jail time, and just execute on the spot. I doubt the author would want that.
#15. To: redleghunter, misterwhite stoner, no gnu takes (#9)
(Edited)
The author must make an argument to repeal most DUI laws so he can be free to smoke weed and drive. That's pretty much the motivation.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#16. To: Deckard, redleghunter (#15)
" It's a shame that y'all can't see the big picture here. "
#17. To: Stoner (#16)
But for you to argue that in that condition it is OK to drive a vehicle on the public highway, is ridiculous.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#18. To: Deckard (#15)
The DWI laws, as has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, exist only to enhance revenue for the State.
#19. To: no gnu taxes (#8)
That was started with the idea of saving gas. But yes, it did last long after that wasn't really a concern anymore.
#20. To: Deckard (#6)
The real dangerous drunks on the road pay little heed to any DUI laws.
#21. To: misterwhite (#10)
"The author must make an argument to repeal most DUI laws so he can be free to smoke weed and drive"
#22. To: GrandIsland (#21)
"Deckard ... pushes more drugs than Pfizer Inc."
#23. To: misterwhite (#22)
Got that right. But, unlike Pfizer, he doesn't include warning
labels.
#24. To: no gnu taxes (#8)
#25. To: redleghunter (#18)
#26. To: jeremiad (#24)
Driving at 55 MPH uses more fuel than 70.
#27. To: GrandIsland, misterwhite, Stoner, redleghunter, CZ82, tpaine (#21)
(Edited)
Deckard is like LF's very own pharmacist. He pushes more drugs than Pfizer Inc.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#28. To: jeremiad (#25)
Having a BAC of .08 is not drunk, it is not even impaired in many cases. It is an arbitrary number pulled out of MADD's ass and accepted by willing govt hacks always hungry for revenue.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#29. To: Deckard, sober drivers, accident prone (#28)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]