Utah's New Drunk Driving Law
...is a joke. I don't driver after more than 2 beers (I'm large). Actually, I rarely have more than 1 or 2. But, over the years I've watched people I know have their lives turned upside down for this kind of thing. The fines are usury. It's one thing if somebody drives blitzed. But, this is a law going after casual drinkers, in my opinion. Why not make it 0.02?
There are no geographical "two factions" into which the country could split. There are degrees of statism versus a remnant of respect for freedom spread within and across all states. Some states have a larger majority of more extreme statism. Even rural areas within states are increasingly welfare statist. Very few states could even in principle split from the rest as "right vs left", and they would still retain growing statism.
The country is being destroyed by the lack of ideas of reason and individualism accepted among the population. That is not solved by calling for the conservatives' collectivist "states rights" and "competing" state statism with no idea of the cause of the statism.
What I really mean by “states rights” is simply a way to shrink federal powers and allow state governments to compete with each other in the degree to which they infringe on individual rights. Some states would be less collectivist and attract citizens. Others like California would turn into hell holes to be avoided.
Such unprincipled thinking is hopeless. Advocating competing statism based on invalid concepts is no better than advocating a collapse in expectation that people will magically institute a proper government without regard to all the wrong ideas causing the problem in the first place. When people today migrate to a state that is in some way less onerous they proceed to vote for the same policies they just left, on the same false premises. That is "competing statism".
In any event, this is not a fix for government in the USA. It is a just hopefully a way to delay the march to collectivism. Maybe you can wait for a complete transition to freedom in 100 years. I cant wait that long and would never see it.
What if it never materializes, or is defined as the snowflakes current define things as "micro aggressions" ? Its a slippery slope leading to almost anything being considered a threat to someone. Simple words could be a "threat" and be used as a way to get rid of free speech.
Your life is endangered when you walk out the front door of your house, so does that mean we can force all people to stay away from all other people. It’s a slippery slope
Exceeding a 35 mph speed limit by going 36 is a speeding misdemeanor, not driving to endanger. Objectivity in law requires stating what the limits are so everyone knows what they are. When there is an optional range some point must be selected within it so that it is not subjective law. Codifying the rules in objective law is not a "slippery slope" of "walking out the door".
I would offer that if the roads were private, being caught driving intoxicated could result in forfeiture of driving privileges on that road network But no criminal charges unless actual harm. Occurred.
How about that scenario as a solution to this issue?
My point remains that unless and until there is harm done, it shouldn’t be a criminal matter. It’s gotten so bad with dui that you can’t visit Canada for at least 5 years after a single dui on your record- whether you are going to drive or not.
A single dui will cost at least $10k, years of probation , jail time , and other restrictions. It’s really an attempt at reinstating prohibition. The originator of MADD even quit the organization because it was no longer just about dui.
Very slippery slope attaching criminality to victimless crimes
How about texting? I keep seeing that 4,000 kids are killed while driving and texting. How many people are killed by those texting? How many accidents? Third time - throw them in the pokey for 5 or more years.
Can we get the cops to target the legislators? Where I used to live, the greatest offenders were the law-makers...
:-D
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.mai...
It was in no way for or against rules regarding BAC content.
It was simply an informational post.
The cost of health care will triple.
On the flip side I am not a fan on stop and check. I believe the police only have a responsibility to react to one causing harm, not attempt to prevent it.
I have a friend that, until the doc told him to quit or die, was always at about .06 to .10 (I would bet) and had a machanic shop the whole time, became rather well off from his business and had 18 employees along with 2 or his 3 sons working for him. A highly functional person with high levels of Alchohol. He drove all the time, never did get busted, but had he been pulled over and checked, he would be in trouble.
I do not care for laws that punish all people because they are taking preventative measures rather than reacting to a crime. While I have no problem at all with .05 blood alcohol, use it to check people that get in a accident, run off the road and need help.... swerve all over the road or demonstrate signs of impaired driving. If there is no sign that says "check me out" the police should not do so.
While I certainly agree that driving impaired is a huge problem, you really don't have to have been drinking to be impaired. You can be angry. You can be sleep-deprived. You can be ill. You can be worried. You can be distracted. You can even be on drugs that aren't apparent in a blood or breath test (I heard on the radio this morning that OK is about to start using a test that discovers marijuana in the blood/breath - can't remember which - but it can't be used in court because there's no way -yet- to determine concentration)
All those things (and more) increase the likelihood for having a wreck. Where is the test for those?
I agree with ZenRoy about stop and check and reasonable cause.
For me, it's no different than having to prove I am not a thief every time I exit Costco or Sam's (and increasingly Walmart). I hate having to prove I'm not drunk.
Me dino was Car #5 stopped on a deep in a desert two-laner by a herd of wild mustangs.
Utah license plates drivers blew their horns Honk! Honk! Honk!
Horses totally ignored that.
Utah license plate drivers persisted some more Honk! Honk! Honk!
Alabama me had seen enough Westerns to stick my head out my car window and yell, "HEE-YAH!"
All those wild mustangs bolted and took off running,
Sheesh! Was that common sense simple or what?
As for that stupid law, it was a decade ago when I last sat in a bar. An ex-sister-in-law was having a birthday. That happens when you have children with cousins.
Anyhoo, we moved from a Mexican restaurant to the nearest bar.
Old me ordered an old-fashioned whiskey sour and was surprised someone knew how to make it.
All my ex-relatives and friends spoke of bar hopping. When they drove to the next bar, me dino simply drove home.
Sober me dino did not have a bit of trouble getting there.
I'm to go to jail for showing common sense?
I'll say it again~
Freakin' bah! Humbug! .
I could talk about underhanded speed traps. Perhaps the following is the wors eye witnessed example~
I was seeing a redhead for a couple of months around 1983 a year after starting my state corrections officer career.
Was sitting behind the counter with her where she worked at a convenience food store.
She hissed and fussed as a seedy Bessemer City Cop she knew by name helped himself to shoplifting some pocketed snacks.
It was like the cop was saying, "Hey, I protect you from robbers. So just you sit back and watch my protection racket go to work."
Cop did not even come to the counter. Out the door he went perhaps thinking of his next stop to pull another two-bit heist.
So me dino, who had met her just three or four days earlier, figured that was her problem.
About two weeks later, she hoped I'd watch her trailer, horse and dog (yes, she had a mobile home and a horse fenced in by wire) while
she drove down to Mobile to help some guy cheat on his wife for a weekend.
She was a looker, but for some reason I lost interest in her at that point.
Can't realty put me finger on the elusive why.
Hmm, Hmmmm, Hhmmmmm.
Ooo! All that thinking just then made m widdle dino brain hurt.
Maybe me dino will never figure that 'un out.
And, ya know, there really are some decent people who shouldn't be called a certain name just for living in trailer homes.
And what kind of person is that?
Mike Hale decreased the cost of my pistol permit and send a reminder to left me renew in the mail.
Beats driving the the sheriff's office on an annual basis like I used to have to.
https://jeffcosheriff.net/
Federal statistics do not illuminate this problem, because USDOT directs the states to collect the data in a way that obfuscates it; any accident where somebody was present who had had a drink gets lumped in as "alcohol related," regardless of his BAC or even if the drinker was a passenger or pedestrian.
But for the sake of argument let's accept the Federal propaganda as accurate: any drinking at all increases your chance of being involved in an injury accident that night by a factor of 100. Even then you're talking about the chance of an injury accident on your trip home going up from 1 in 20 million to 1 in 200,000. I can't especially blame drivers who believe that 1 in 200,000 is still pretty good odds.
So if it were up to me, I would not have a "per se" limit at all, but simply direct officers to capture video of a driver's behavior (weaving, difficulty standing upright, etc.), play it in court, and let a jury decide the result. I fail to see that this puts an undue burden on law enforcement.
All of the above applies to marijuana, too.
The US is still very liberal allowing some blood alcohol level.
In Europe, after you consume a liquor filled cherry, you can be arrested.
This law is about revenue generation on the backs of the hapless guy who drinks a couple of beers and drives home fine. This kind of charge can be overly damaging to people.
Any dolt would agree that driving truly impaired should result in real punishment. The government isn't interested in that with this.
You attempted to promote the Libertarian Party by claiming "some libertarians are also Objectivists", implying it is compatible with Ayn Rand's philosophy. It is not. Neither the party nor the movement are "Objectivist". The most that could be said is that if "libertarian" is meant in a vague sense of being pro-freedom then Objectivism is that. That is not what the libertarian movement or the Libertarian Party within it are.
Again, the Libertarian Party "does not have 'Objectivists'. It has some members claiming to have some interest in Objectivism, without understanding, as it dishonestly claims an association with the thinker Ayn Rand who emphatically denounced any such association with her ideas."
Furthermore, the Libertarian Party does not have to be 100% compatible with Ayn Rand’s philosophy in order for Objectivists to legitimately support it and vote for its candidates. The Republican Party certainly does not (and never did) come up to this standard, yet Ayn Rand and many of her supporters often voted Republican and endorsed Republican Party candidates.
There are no "Objectivists" running or supporting the Libertarian Party. Ayn Rand did not "influence" it, she opposed it. She also opposed the anarchists who claimed to have been "influenced" by her. Individuals who say they were influenced by her ideas may or may not have understood them and may or may not have been influenced for the better personally, but the Libertarian Party and a-philosophical libertarian movement were not among that..
Interesting that you condemn the Libertarian Party while giving the Republicans a pass. Which party is closer to your views? The LP platform is anything but “vague” on the issue of individual liberty:
“As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.
“We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
“Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.”
And do you consider the following to be “abdication of foreign policy”?
“American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.”
Contrast this with the GOP, and then explain why it’s moral to support Republicans but immoral to support Libertarians.
By the way, Ayn Rand cited the phrase "everybody knows" as an example of an Argument from Intimidation. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arg...
Why it can be moral to vote for a Republican given the two choices available was explained during the campaign. "Voting" for the Libertarian Party is not a realistic vote at all. Sarcastic ignorant "appreciation" is not a response to that.
Aside from its fringe political nature the Libertarian Party is worse in that its publicity-seeking misleads people about the meaning of freedom and what is realistic in politics while demanding support for its antics in which it calls itself the "party of principle". No Objectivist should support that.
It’s as simple as that. This is what I do, and that doesn’t mean you have to agree
If the roads were privately owned, I think there would be rules that customers would have to follow that attempted to increase the safety of all the customers- not unlike the current licensing and dui rules-BUT without the criminal aspects for driving in a dangerous fashion if no harm was involved. The membership in that road system would be revoked. Electronic surveillance could enforce that today
Private roads, like private property anywhere, are not the basis of protecting the rights of the individual from criminal behavior. Wanting to eliminate enforcement of criminal law because the crime is on private property takes us back to the subjectivist "anarcho capitalist" mentality and its bizarre "private defense agencies".
I much prefer the emotional outbursts of trump than the hidden agendas and lies of Hillary and Obama. I also think that when it comes to actions that trump is much more careful and deliberate than it appears. He has to be to have been so successful in business. I also think that to retain his sanity in the face of the constant attacks on him, he enjoys tweaking the establishment with outrageous Twitter messages to annoy them
I think he knows now that his ability to drain the swamp is quite limited by the protectionist actions of the swamp dwellers.
I want to see trump pardon a number of people before he goes in 2020, Snowden for one followed by the people mueller has attacked because they worked for trump
Hillary will not be held accountable for her obvious and severe violations of security laws that she doesn't care about for her own arrogant convenience and entitlement to power to do what she wants. Maybe Trump will pardon her just to make a point, sticking the hypocrisy in their faces. Remember the story that leaked out during the campaign debates: Trump and Hillary were back stage before a debate. Hillary was arrogantly pushing her way through with a pseudo polite "pardon me". Trump said, "If I win the election I'll consider it."
As to Snowden, I was surprised at his reaction. I would have thought a pardon was coming down the pike immediately after election. But, I think that Trump has this time, and other times as well, pandered to the establishment. He should have brought snowden back and put him in as a watchdog right here in the USA with his security clearance reinstated. I wasnt pleased with his reaction to Snowden, or in fact his recent trade war with china. What he needs to do is stick to making sure USA workers are competitive with Chinese workers, which they are NOT now. USA workers are entitled, under educated, and under motivated. Best workers are chinese (right in china), and then first generation illegal workers from central america, Worst workers are second generation socialist central american workers spoiled by American welfare, entitled blacks. Trump supporting american workers are ok, but somewhat saddled by expectations not in line with world productivity standards however.
A Trump "pardon", if he were to do it, would have no practical effect on her politically exempt legal situation, but would serve the purpose of sticking it in her face and reminding everyone else of her guilt and the power-mongering double standard of the Democrats' FBI/Mueller persecutions.
I've always thought we single out drunk driving over other dangerous behaviors. I don't think anyone compared the risks and linked the penalties to them, e.g. going 15mph over in a populated area, running a red light, driving with 0.10% BAC, driving with a history of petit mal seizures. I think we go overboard on the seriousness of drunk driving.
This is prohibition again. It didn’t work last time either, and isn’t working this time except to milk a lot of money from drivers, and cost us all a lot in terms of enforcement
Laws designed to “prevent” real crimes by arresting people for victimless crimes can’t work. Prohibition failed and created the mafia. The war on drugs is a dismal failure and created cartels and violence at home. Laws penalizing people for auto insurance lapses (victimless crime” fail to reduce the need for “uninsured” motorist insurance the list goes on and on.
Even the founder of MADD withdrew from the organization out of disgust that its goals had moved toward prohibition in general
Half the people in the country voted for Hillary. Clearly the use of "most people" doesnt really make it right.
If you remove all the vehicles, there will be absolutely NO deaths caused by cars at all. Remove all pedestrians and we can eliminate all pedestrian deaths too. If these anti dui laws were so effective, there would be no need for current enforcement, since all the drunk people would be off the road. BUT, thats clearly not the case now, as it wasnt during prohibition.
The war on drugs is clearly a collectivist thing and is immoral in itself. Smoking out in your own house has NO VICTIMS at all.
I dont understand why you are so into the anti drug and alcohol movement. It seems to fly in the fact of your objectivist leanings.
Objectivism is not libertarian subjectivism and hedonism.
If one gets a dui, it’s common now to get years of probation during which time you cannot drive with ANY blood alcohol at all- not the 0,08 that any normal person can have
In the case of drunk driving, there is no intent to injure me. If it was my road, I would not allow drunk people to drive on my road, pretty much as the government does now, BUT criminal penalties would only apply as a result of actual injury to a victim
Likewise, having your license revoked for drunk driving is punishment for the crime. The suspension prevents you from doing it again because you have proved by your own actions that you can't be trusted to drive. If you had pulled a stunt like that when you first went for your driver's license you would not have been allowed to complete the test and would never have received a license.
Are you trying rationalize the elimination of laws against drunk driving because you're a drunk? There is no rational basis for it. Were you drinking before writing this? You did not get those screwy ideas from Ayn Rand, or any other mental process connected to reality, but your statements are now public for all to see. They suggest that you are someone who should be watched. Whether or not you understand what is wrong with them, if you engage in the activities you want to be innocent you will in fact be charged with a crime and treated accordingly. Civilized society would not put up with it, and neither would anyone else, right down to gangsters you would threaten.
No, it is not a "philosophy club" -- it has no basis in philosophy applied to reality at all. The sneering "philosophy club" trivializing philosophy only admits the complete lack of understanding of the role philosophy as a serious requirement for political change.
No, it does not have "Objectivists". It has some members claiming to have some interest in Objectivism, without understanding, as it dishonestly claims an association with the thinker Ayn Rand who emphatically denounced any such association with her ideas.
An example of the lack required understanding and acceptance of Objectivism is in the thinking at the Libertarian Party.
I think this pretty much fits the definition of “ad hominem”. And your characterization of the Libertarian Party as “a fringe party that is not seriously debated” is demonstratably false. Here’s a partial list of people and publications that endorsed Johnson and Weld in the 2016 election, according to Wikipedia:
Newspapers: Chicago Tribune, The Detroit News, New Hampshire Union Leader, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Winston-Salem Journal.
Performers: Drew Carey, Penn and Teller, Melissa Joan Hart, Joe Rogan.
Directors/screenwriters: Heywood Gould, David Lynch.
Scholars: Deirdre McCloskey, Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago; Jeffrey Miron, Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies of the Harvard University economics department, Director of Economic Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, former Department of Economics chair at Boston University; Michael Munger, professor of political science and economics and former chair of Political Science department at Duke University.
If you’re still willing to write off the LP as a “fringe” party, that’s your privilege, but the facts say otherwise.
The Ad Hominem Argument (also, "Personal attack," "Poisoning the well"): The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s intelligence, morals, education, professional qualifications, personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson...
Also, I never said the Libertarian Party is Objectivist.
Prohibition never stopped. Drug abuse went from being a personal temperance issue 100 years ago. Eventually by accident of history, caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine were exempted. Then around 1970 in turned into a "war" mentality. It's unhealthy in some many ways. I agree with your suspicion that this mentality makes us treat drunk driving as more criminal than other risky behavior.
Only a small part of prohibition was repealed by amendment. The idea of treating people's drug use a crime persisted. Alcohol was exempted.
"The 'war on drugs' against hard drugs "
Hard means the focus of prohibition. The war on drugs includes drugs that are much less harmful than alcohol. Users of khat, which is on par with caffeine, are treated like armed robbers.
"[drug prohibition] has nothing to do with the prohibition on drunk driving. "
I don't assert it does or does not. I agree treating drunk driving as a serious criminal offense is not part of a conspiracy to increase prohibition of drugs or to start prohibiting more drugs. I think the way we treat drunk driving is part of a broad trend of criminalizing things.
If you drive a car, you are increasing the risk to others. If you do it on drugs, the risk is several times worse. If you get caught but don't hurt anyone, it's treated as a minor crime. If fortune works against you and you hurt or kill someone while operating under the influence, it's treated like murder. This seems illogical to me. I don't have an answer about how to deal with someone who took a stupid risk and someone died. I just think we're overboard on drunk driving.
"Hard drugs" means those that are more addictive and potent such as heroin and cocaine in comparison with marijuana, not "the focus of prohibition". The hard drugs are regarded as more serious because they are more damaging in both their effects and rapidity of addiction.
None of them, "hard" or not, are "on a par with caffeine". Regardless of the "hard drug" category, all of them are now prohibited, but more recently with a growing movement in law allowing marijuana. Prohibiting them is an attempt to protect people from themselves, but not only that: Manipulating other people, including children, into addiction is properly regarded as a serious crime.
The risk to others from driving under the influence of drugs is not "several times worse" than alcohol; it depends on the drug and the amount of drugs or alcohol. Instances of more serious danger possible from drugs do not reduce the danger and proper status of criminality for drunk driving. Prohibiting drunk driving is because of what it is, unrelated to either the 'war on drugs' or a "broad trend of criminalizing things." There is no excuse to allow drunk driving or driving mentally impaired due to drugs.
Drunk driving is prohibited because drunks kill people, caused by the nature of the mental impairment they choose, not "fortune working against you" after a mere "stupid risk" with no foreseeable consequences. They are responsible for their own decisions and the consequences. It is murder, in the form of involuntary manslaughter and felony death by vehicle, with technical details varying in different states. The criminal punishment is less severe under the law when someone is not killed -- as in many other categories -- because of the lack of malicious intent to kill, but the impairment causing the danger is chosen.
"Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment" -- Ayn Rand.
"When you deal with the threat of force, nothing can answer it but armed force" -- Ayn Rand.
Given the number of billboards advertising lawyers , I would say that drunk driving is one of the least problems here in terms of the number of accidents.