Should drinking and driving be illegal?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Here in Montana, we do not have an open container law. Consequently, you can go fishing and then sit in your pickup and share a beer with your buddy afterwards. You can also drive home from a picnic with a wine bottle from which you have only drunk a a few sips.

Driving down the interstate while doing tequila shots is also ok.

The only time you are in danger of breaking the law is if you drive while intoxicated, i.e. if your blood alcohol exceeds the legal limit.


Should drinking and driving be illegal?

[Lisa0825]

I think it should be legal.

all that should really matter, IMO, is whether or not you are intoxicated.

Have you heard about the proposal (I don't recall which state) to have a breathlyzer in EVERY vehicle??? Can you say "guilty until proven innocent?" good grief!

[Crachet2004]

5. Yeah and the Democratic Party gets the blame for nonsense...

like that! It really hurts us too! Makes us seem shrill and unreasonable. Let the GOP be the Party of Buttinsky's!

We should be the enabling party-isn't that the meaning of 'liberal'?

Let the GOP be the Bible-thumping 'Party of Thou Shalt Not'! They are suited to it and it will almost always result in their defeat.

People don't like to be told what to do...especially by people who don't know what they are talking about.

[iverglas]

9. "innocent until proven guilty"

We all need to know what the presumption of innocence means, I often think.

What it means is that no one may be punished for something unless it has been proved, to the necessary standard, that s/he did it.

Regulatory restrictions on conduct are NOT a violation of the presumption of innocence. No one is being punished for anything.

How does requiring someone to pass a breathalyzer before being able to operate a motor vehicle punish him/her?

If s/he passes the test, off she goes.

If s/he fails the test, s/he was not entitled to be driving in the first place.

And yet s/he is still not being "punished", unless one regards being temporarily prevented from driving because one is not qualified or entitled to drive "punishment". We don't regard it as "punishment" when people who are blind are not permitted to drive. They simply don't meet the entirely reasonable and justified qualifications for driving.

We think it's dangerous for blind people to drive. We also think it's dangerous for drunk people to drive. Why accept a test that excludes one group and object to a test that excludes the other??

"Guilty until proven innocent" would be something like a person being stopped for making a dangerous lane change, being charged with drunk driving without any breathalyzer being done, and having to prove that s/he was not drunk or else lose his/her licence or go to jail.

"Innocent until proven guilty" refers ONLY to the burden of proof in a criminal trial -- the prosecution must prove its allegations of criminal activity and if it doesn't, the accused cannot be convicted or punished; the accused need never (with certain limited exceptions) prove his/her innocence.

It has absolutely nothing to do with equipping cars with breathalyzers that would disable the vehicle a drunk is attempting to drive.

.

[RoeBear]

35. My God are you actually...

...in favor of on board breathalyzers?

"How does requiring someone to pass a breathalyzer before being able to operate a motor vehicle punish him/her?"

The person who has to pay for it is punished. A woman running to her car to escape being raped is punished. The person who misses work because it malfunctions is punished.

Maybe in Canada but not here in America.

[iverglas]

41. my dog, are you actually

... wanting someone to get the impression that I am

...in favor of on board breathalyzers?

What would you cite as substantiation for such an assertion, if you were to make such an assertion? I'm always just so curious.

If there was something I said that made you think that I was in favour of on-board breathalyzers, and if you tell me what it was, I'll help you to get over your misunderstanding, okay?

As far as I can tell, all I did was point out that to say that a requirement that a car be equipped with a device IS NOT "PUNISHMENT", and that the "innocent until proved guilty" rule is not of the slightest relevance to the issue.

"How does requiring someone to pass a breathalyzer before being able to operate a motor vehicle punish him/her?"

The person who has to pay for it is punished. A woman running to her car to escape being raped is punished. The person who misses work because it malfunctions is punished.

Damn, here's me being PUNISHED every time the insurance company deducts my car insurance from my Visa account. Here's me being PUNISHED every time I run to an office building to escape a mime and it's locked. Here's me being PUNISHED every time I miss work because the traffic light I have to stop at on the way malfunctioned and I couldn't get through.

But I'm INNOCENT! And I should therefore not be required to have insurance on my car, or locked out of buildings I might need to escape into, or required to stop at traffic lights that might malfunction.

(How exactly was that damsel in distress planning to get where she was going before the big nasty rapist came along, anyhow? And will you and yours never tire of exploiting the victimization of women for your own ends?)

Maybe in Canada but not here in America.

Maybe, perhaps, could be, you never know. Except: not. Not at the moment; not in the reasonably foreseeable future. But if it were (the law in Canada), I'm betting that our annual highway traffic death rate would be a whole lot lower than the rate in the US ... kinda like our firearms death rates are.

But of course, the lower numbers here wouldn't be because of the on-board breathalyzer requirement, hell no. They'd be because ... well, I dunno. Because there would have been even more deaths in the US if drunks (the ones who weren't toting guns around to start with) hadn't been able to jump into their cars and flee those marauding robbers and rapers and general mayhem-committers ... or some damned thing. I never do quite get it.

.

[RoeBear]

46. My Ogd...

...where did I do anything but ask a question? And where did you answer my question?

"What would you cite as substantiation for such an assertion, if you were to make such an assertion?"

[iverglas]

56. oh, mea maxima culpa

Was I actually saying what you asked whether I was saying?

Well, I'll avoid saying "duh", and instead say: nope, I wasn't saying that.

I'll just have to wonder what would have made somebody ask the question, I guess.

Are you actually saying that the earth is flat? Just asking, you know. And note that I am not asking you whether you think the earth is flat. I'm asking you whether you're saying it is. I expect you'll wonder why I'd ask you that ... but you won't be expecting an answer, I assume.

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

83. I don't mind asking - again.

Are you in favor of on board breathalyzers?

[iverglas]

87. "again"?

Are you in favor of on board breathalyzers?

I have never yet been asked that question. I have no idea why you would say that you are asking it "again".

If someone wants to ask me a STRAIGHTFORWARD QUESTION, not a question that contains

- an implication that I have said something I have never said

or

- an implication that I have previously avoided answering or declined to answer the question

... and if the question is relevant to some issue under discussion ... I'm generally quite happy to answer it.

In this case, I was first asked whether I was "actually" saying something I'd never come close to saying, and am now being told that I am being asked a question "again" that I have never been asked. These things don't make me happy, not happy at all.

So darn it all, it's just not looking like a conversation I want to have. No skin off my nose if nobody gets the answer to a question. If anybody'd just asked it, s/he would have got it.

.

[RoeBear]

92. I could have have sworn that:

"My God are you actually in favor of on board breathalyzers?" was a question. But I will have to defer to you massive, superior intelligence, not to mention keyboarding skills.

See here's how this conversation could have gone in the Bizarro world:

Me: "My God are you actually in favor of on board breathalyzers?"

You: (option #1) "Yes I am"

You: (option #2) "No, I was just using that as an example."


"These things don't make me happy, not happy at all."
I'll try to keep that a TOP priority from now on.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

95. A straightforward question: Are you in favor of on board breathalyzers?

Will a straightforward answer be forthcoming?

[maxanne]

51. how many people

are capable of judging their own level of intoxication? Please go into a bar and do a survey.

[TahitiNut]

91. That would be a way to kill and maim more children.

"Just breathe into this <belch!>, darling!"
"Off we <hic!> go!"

So, rather than designated drivers, we'd have designated breathers. :silly:

[kiahzero]

1. So long as you're not intoxicated

it's no different than drinking coffee, true?

[Bronco69]

2. Bingo!!

:-)

[RoeBear]

42. It's a pretty grown up way...

...to handle it.

[htuttle]

3. Should terrorism be legal?

I've lost many, many more friends to drunk drivers than I have to any silly terrorists. Just lost another last summer.

Having lived in Montana at one point, I would say that it is a special case.

It's huge, it's empty, and there are hardly any cars. There are stretches of road in the Eastern portion of the state where you might as well tie up the steering wheel and nap for an hour. When I was there, there were more people living in the City of San Francisco than in the entire state of Montana (it was about 770,000 back then...I think it's probably shrunk some, too).

There's practically no speed limit on the highways in most of Montana. There is a 'posted' limit, but you have to be doing about twice that to actually get stopped.

The legislature only met once every two years when I lived there, and without a sales tax, there were almost no public services.

Montana is a far cry from most of the rest of the country. At least as far as driving goes. What works in Montana would not work in a more densely populated state.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. Terrorism is an idea, not an act.

No, ideas should not be illegal, only acts, such as exploding bombs on buses or flying airplanes into buildings.

[htuttle]

8. Yes, of course

And I exaggerated the situation using the word 'terrorism'. Well, maybe not -- I suppose it depends on how you count up the bodies.

It would probably be best for me to just leave this thread alone because I'm highly biased. I've been working in the taxi industry for a few decades, and not only have I lost many colleagues to drunk drivers, but also drunk drivers ultimately make me a lot of money.

When they lose their licenses, they usually have to take cabs to and from work. Every day. Cha-ching! $$$ :)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. Wouldn't responsible people also make you a lot of money?

Since they are calling cabs instead of driving home drunk?

[htuttle]

15. But that's only when they go to the bar

When a drunk loses his license, I get them ALL the time: to work, to home, to the grocery store, to the barber shop, to grandma's house, you name it. I've seen people spend a few hundred a week on cabs after they lose they license due to drunk driving.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. Those must be some mighty rich drunk drivers.

[htuttle]

20. Not after I'm through with them....

:hi:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. So how long does this 'few hundred a week on cabs' usually last?

A week? Two?

A can't really believe that there are many drunk drivers spending a few hundred a week on cabs for very long. I would imagine most of those people just end up driving without a license if they can't find another way to get around.

[htuttle]

28. Depends on what sort of job they have

If they are poor, usually it's the bus for them, except for grocery shopping (ever try to take 8 bags of groceries on the bus?).

When a management or professional type loses his license to DUI -- it's PAYDAY!!! I had this one passenger once or twice a day, $30 each way for nearly a year until he was able to finagle an occupational permit.

BTW, if they drive without a license after revocation for DUI here in WI, they are likely to get mandatory jail time if they get stopped. Many find they have to give up other things in order to be able to afford to go to work after a DUI.

[RoeBear]

47. Some of the safest drivers around...

...are those driving around without benefit of a driver's license. No it's true.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

85. Ssshhhhh! politically incorrect statement!

Its truth is irrelevant.

:spank:

[iverglas]

96. but some might think the more relevant point is

Not how "safe" a few drivers who don't have driver's licences are ... but what proportion of drivers without driver's licences are safe drivers (esp. as compared to the proportion of drivers with driver's licences are).

Obviously, most of us thought that was the most relevant consideration, having banned driving on public roads without a driver's licence. Perhaps we're all just silly.

Perhaps driving without a licence tends to make one extra careful, and therefore safer ...

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

97. Perhaps all the facts are relevant in varying proportions

and should be weighed accordingly.


Just a thought...

[SmileyBoy]

45. It's actually about 910,000 people now.

But it's still even more sparsely populated per square mile than North Dakota.

[Ediacara]

60. Man..... I got pulled over for going hardly past 80 twice!

By the way, Montana has actually grown to just under one million, all of it's urban and suburban growth. Many small farm towns are severely suffering from population drops of 50% or more though, which is pretty disturbing.

[sweetheart]

6. If we were talking about cannabis...

i wonder if people would have a similar breakdown in opinion.

Perhaps "lit joint" is like "open container".. or perhaps all your
stash needs to be in the trunk, as long as you're not intoxicated.

Driving through the wide open spaces of america "stoned" is a rite
of passage that more people have done than would admit... yet no
crime was committed, as those of us who have, did no harm by it,
and obviously were not THAT intoxicated.

Does cannabis equate to alcohol in this poll?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. To answer your question

no, this poll is intended to be strictly about alcohol, and whether it should be against the law to have an open container of alcohol in your vehicle.

[rbnyc]

63. Yeah, I think your stash should be in the trunk.

;-)

Actually, I think there should be more public transportation and we should all be allowed to drink and smoke on the train.

[nedlogg]

10. If you get blown out . . .

at a bar and drive home without incident, did you commit a crime?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. Yes.

If by 'get blown out' you mean, get drunk.

It is against the law to drive while intoxicated, whether you get caught or not, just as it is against the law to commit murder, whether you get caught or not.


But the poll isn't about driving while intoxicated, it's about driving while not intoxicated.

[sweetheart]

17. no

If you have too much novicaine at the dentist, that you are actually
intoxicated, and you make it home, you've committed no crime.

Same same with alcohol. If you break the laws whilst driving,
you could be committing a crime.

If you kill someone, its a serious crime, and that you chose a 2 ton
hulk of metal to kill with, shows intent to kill.

If there is no victem, there is no crime.

[Streetdoc270]

59. ??????

So I can randomly fire a shotgun on a crowded street and just because I don't hit any one there is no crime?

If you break the law, regardless of what you are doing you have comitted a crime, and if caught subject to punishment.

[sweetheart]

101. no correlation mate

The fallacious argument that driving over the limit is equivalent
to discharging firearms at civilians is a bit of a stretch.

The "limit" is different for each individual, and some folks drive
like looneys if they've had too much. Others don't. To create an
umbrella law that calls drivers who never commit crimes "criminals"
because they "might" be in the bad-set is wrong.

Likely YOU have been afoul of the law yourself, as the limits on
legal drugs are actually quite minimal, and likely you've been over
the limit driving home from the dentist, or from pain killers for
a medical treatment... or from being drunk the previous night.

Blood alcohol is a weak standard, considering the other factors
involved, and if you can drive whilst your blood is over the stupid
number, and drive safely, then good for you.

That might be the equivalent of using a shotgun on the range, safely.
TO stretch that to imply that someone is shooting randomly at
crowds is quite different.

Methinks the law should take these factors in to account and measure
someone's actual coordination and response times, rather than their
blood alcohol.

I would never drive a car if i were unsafely intoxicated. I just
drove back from the pub after 2 beers and 1 shot of whiskey over 2
hours... i drove 2.5 miles and there were NO other cars on the road.
NONE. Whether or not i've tipped above the limit is irrelevant.

No crime was done or attempted.

Use a better argument if yo're trying to make sense.

[iverglas]

106. interesting theory

If there is no victem, there is no crime.

Of course, it's not a statement of fact. Crimes are what we make them, and we have whole loads of crimes that have no victim. Drunk driving is just one of them.

The fallacious argument that driving over the limit is equivalent to discharging firearms at civilians is a bit of a stretch.

Well, if that were what the poster had said, it would be. S/he didn't exactly say "discharging firearms at civilians". Although "sending a heavy object hurtling down the highway at civilians", which really is what driving amounts to, isn't that far off.

The "limit" is different for each individual, and some folks drive like looneys if they've had too much.

Yup, and some people are such excellent markspeople that they can fire a firearm up into the air and be absolutely certain that it will come down without hitting anyone, say on the deserted top of a neighbouring building. Nonetheless, we prohibit everyone from doing it ... not least of all because there are undoubtedly a bunch of people in the world who seriously overestimate their shooting skills and need to be kept from doing this. And of course because there might just be someone on the top of that building. Just as the issue isn't entirely whether a drunk drives like a loonie, but whether the drunk can respond appropriately to a situation.

To create an umbrella law that calls drivers who never commit crimes "criminals" because they "might" be in the bad-set is wrong.

No, they're called criminals because they violated a criminal law. It really is just a tautology.

What you're saying is that to call them criminals when they have caused no harm is wrong. You oughta just say that. It's an opinion, and it has its merits. It's not one that is widely shared in our societies, which do widely regulate behaviour -- and punish violators -- in order to prevent harm. Many of us like this idea.

Blood alcohol is a weak standard, considering the other factors involved, and if you can drive whilst your blood is over the stupid number, and drive safely, then good for you.

That might be the equivalent of using a shotgun on the range, safely. TO stretch that to imply that someone is shooting randomly at crowds is quite different.

Gee, it looks pretty much the same to me (although I think the "firing in the air" is more analogous). Whether any harm occurs all depends on the skill of the person doing the driving/shooting, no? Or the luck.

Methinks the law should take these factors in to account and measure someone's actual coordination and response times, rather than their blood alcohol.

So ... we have a law that if someone is suspected of driving drunk (which still isn't causing any harm, is it? so why are you proposing such a law, again?), s/he will be pulled over and taken to some place where a battery of tests can be performed, and if s/he fails, s/he will be charged with, what, driving while incompetent? But if s/he were driving at 15 mph only, couldn't s/he argue that s/he didn't *need* to have good response times, etc.?

Me, I've long said that people's speed limits on the highway in km/h should be tied to their IQs. That would leave me going as fast as my car could take me, and the person at the bottom of the middle 1/3 of the bell curve maxing out at 90 km/h -- about 50 mph. Maybe we can devise a similar system for blood alcohol level.

Or maybe we can just look at the death and destruction wrought by drunk drivers that would never have occurred if they hadn't been driving drunk, and say that we're all just willing to accept the teeny tiny interference with our liberty that being prohibited from driving when our blood alcohol levels are above a certain point constitutes.

Yeah, I find it annoying that when I go out for dinner I can't ever drink, because I'm always the driver. But it's not like I've been locked up in my kitchen and forbidden to go out to dinner.

.

[sweetheart]

111. Libertarian blood

yes, indeed you expose the issue. It is that i've libertarian
views... and that believing in responsibility and self-control is
the best way to tackle crime... and that punitive punishment for
no-crime reinforces nothing, no wisdom, no deterrence and no gain for anyone... only social costs of policing.

The invasiveness of the police and the cost to our culture of running
road blocks and the draconian systems of enforcement they use given
this modus oporendi that we are all criminals hiding... perverts the
human right to presumption of innocence.

The costs do not equal the benefits. That said, presume someone
in my libertarian idyll kills someone whilst drunk driving. Such
a person would pay a sizeable sum to the bereaved, and be imprisoned
for murder with a deadly weapon... drunkenness would be no excuse.
People would quickly realize that while they may be free to abuse
the priviliedge of driving and may themselves drive drunk, that they
are also forewarned, that if they do indeed abuse the priviledge,
they stand to lose EVERYTHING.

The problem is that in all the blood alcohol and busting poeple for
victemless DWI, all that really happens is that the real criminals
are not deterred, and the legal system becomes an instrument of
the destruction of trust and goodwill in society. You may discount
these things, but i don't.... by introducing police presence ONLY
when really necessary, the law is respected. As it stands the law
is a guidline to be ignored.

[iverglas]

113. libertarian ... or puritan?

That said, presume someone in my libertarian idyll kills someone whilst drunk driving. Such a person would pay a sizeable sum to the bereaved, and be imprisoned for murder with a deadly weapon... drunkenness would be no excuse.

And the victim would be dead, and the family and society would have suffered an irreplacable loss ... that could have been prevented, not certainly in any one case but certainly in the aggregate, if society had taken effective preventive measures.

What are we more interested in: wreaking vengeance on people who do nasty things, or fewer nasty things happening?

People would quickly realize that while they may be free to abuse the priviliedge of driving and may themselves drive drunk, that they are also forewarned, that if they do indeed abuse the priviledge, they stand to lose EVERYTHING.

Yes, and the death penalty is so effective at preventing homicides.

It's always wise to know, and acknowledge, a few things about human nature and that kinda stuff before designing a system in which it is the major factor.

Many crimes are committed on impulse, not after careful planning. Homicide, in very many cases, is one of them. Drunk driving would be about the most obvious other example. What does alcohol do? Reduce inhibitions -- reduce impulse control. A drunk really, really does not stop a moment and thing hmm, if I get behind the wheel right now, I might just lose everything ...

That'll be a good reason for prohibiting drinking while driving, of course. The more the driver drinks, the fewer inhibitions and the less impulse control s/he has. One more drink, Bob? Yeah, don't mind if I do.

Oops. Bob's driving drunk.

The problem is that in all the blood alcohol and busting poeple for victemless DWI, all that really happens is that the real criminals are not deterred, and the legal system becomes an instrument of the destruction of trust and goodwill in society.

Well, them's fancy words, but they don't have much to do with reality. Pretty much every single person I know kinda likes the idea that society is working to make it less likely that s/he will be smashed to bits in a collision with a drunk driver who crossed that centre line.

"Real criminals"? I'm not sure whom you're talking about. Bank robbers and swindlers? That can't be it, because I can't imagine how a law against drunk driving could be *expected* to deter them. Does a law against arson deter them?

Drunk drivers who kill someone? So the "real crime" is killing someone? Except that crimes require what we call mens rea -- intent. A drunk driver really seldom intended to kill anyone. We really just can't go putting people in prison for life (or executing them?) for "committing a crime" they did not commit -- and if they did not intend to commit it, they didn't commit it.

You may discount these things, but i don't.... by introducing police presence ONLY when really necessary, the law is respected. As it stands the law is a guidline to be ignored.

This is ideology, nothing more. The prohibition on drunk driving is no more a "guideline to be ignored" than any other law. Is the prohibition on homicide a "guideline to be ignored"? Apparently ... since a lot of people still commit homicides.

In point of fact, stringent anti-drunk driving laws have pretty obviously worked to reduce the numbers of drunk drivers on the road, and the mayhem caused by them.

No question, it's a tough nut. Many drunk drivers are alcoholics; the effects of an addiction are not going to be influenced by a law -- alcoholics are not going to stop drinking because of a law. But not even all alcoholics are impervious to the message that if they drink and drive they'll be in big shit.

Not even a conviction is going to deter some drunks from driving. If we truly want to protect the members of our society from the harm they are quite likely to cause (and yes, protection of its members really is one of the fundamental jobs of a society; a society is not a bunch of "men in the state of nature", really) there may be other measures needed.

Like the on-board breathalyzers that I gather are required equipment, here in Ontario, for people who have been convicted of drunk driving. Why should society rely on the discretion of people who have demonstrated that they are unable or unwilling to exercise that discretion in a manner that doesn't endanger others? So not only *may* they not drive if they're drunk, they *can* not drive if they're drunk. How's that for a deterrent to drunk driving? Get convicted of it, and you'll have to pay to have a breathalyzer in your car for the next couple of years.

And it sure infringes on liberty less than locking 'em up, eh?

.

[Rainbowreflect]

13. I believe it should be.

Often once someone starts drinking they do not know when they cross the line and become impaired.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. To those who vote 'Yes' - why?

Why should it be illegal to drive home from a picnic with a open, but corked bottle of wine, if you are not intoxicated, for instance?


Let's say I drink half a bottle of beer, bringing my blood alcohol level to - let's say for the sake of argument, .02 - should it be illegal for me to drive home with that open bottle, yet legal for me to drive home if I finish it and bring my blood alcohol level to .04 first? I don't understand the logic of that.

[iverglas]

21. isn't that a slightly different question?

Why should it be illegal to drive home from a picnic with a open, but corked bottle of wine, if you are not intoxicated, for instance?

That's not what the poll asked, after all. It asked whether it should be illegal to drink while driving.

The prohibition on open containers is plainly because there's no way of disproving a driver's statement that s/he was not drinking out of the open container, and thus no way of enforcing the no-drinking-while-driving rule. The simple solution was always really simple: put it in the trunk. Minivans and SUVs do present a problem ...

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. Actually no, that was one of the examples I used in my original post.

And it is indeed illegal under every open container law I know of to drive with a corked bottle of wine in your car. And as you point out, not every car has a trunk that is not acccesible to the driver.

And indeed, the effect of not making open containers illegal, is to make drinking while driving (but NOT driving while intoxicated) legal. Which is one of the reasons I posed my poll question in the flame-generating manner I did.

[iverglas]

30. forgive me, but

... while you offered a variety of background information, the poll question was, and was only:

Should drinking and driving be illegal?

But I guess I answered your other one anyhow.

.

[rbnyc]

61. There's no reason you can't put it in the trunk.

I think the purpose of having it in the car is to be able to drink from it. If it's legal to have it in the car, a person who is drinking can easily deny it, and if they are not exhibiting enough signs, an officer may not test the driver's blood-alcohol level. Alcohol and vehicles just don't mix. Period.

[Ediacara]

64. that's a completely different example

If you're driving and the corked bottle of wine is in the backseat and you're sober, you're not drinking and driving (although technically you have an open container), and that should not be illegal.

If you're driving with an uncorked bottle of wine between your legs and you blow a 0.79 you ARE drinking and driving and that SHOULD be illegal.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

86. Well that is a valid distinction.

Another poster noted that that is the law in Quebec - open container ok, drinking and driving prohibited. Les Québecois sont des peuples sensibles!

That is a compromise I would not object to. It certainly is an exception though, I have never before heard of a jurisdiction that made that distinction. I would still ask whether that would prohibit a couple guys from sharing a beer in the cab of their pickup after fishing, or if that would require them to get out of the pickup, drink the beer, and then drive.

[iverglas]

16. Of course it should

In my ever so humble opinion, and the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the 31,000,000 Canadians governed by the provincial and territorial highway traffic codes that prohibit drinking while driving.

http://xnet.rrc.mb.ca/library/stats2/stat08/0129785-002-XIE.pdf

Prohibition from transporting an open alcoholic
beverage container in a motor vehicle
This provision exists in most provinces and territories (Table 9).
The only minor difference concerns Quebec, where only the
drinking of alcoholic beverages is illegal, but the presence
of an open container in a motor vehicle is not.

Good grief.

What huge and important liberty is infringed by prohibiting drinking while driving? The huge and important liberty of being able to consume alcohol whenever and wherever one might like, without having to wait until one is not behind the wheel of a vehicle? Sheesh.

What huge and important public interest might be at stake if people drank alcohol while driving? Oh, well, just the public interest in ensuring that people aren't smashed to bits on the road by drivers who have drunk just a tad too much alcohol. No biggie.

People cannot accurately predict the effects of alcohol on their abilities, or when they reach the "illegal" level; many factors can be in operation, such as whether food has been eaten, the driver's sex and weight, etc. A sober driver could become a drunk driver without too much difficulty and in not too much time. (Yeah, maybe not on that stuff you USAmericans call beer ...)

Yes, people can have the same trouble assessing their impairedness while standing on terra firma -- but quite a lot of people would refrain from driving if they did feel impaired, whether they knew their actual blood alcohol level or not. If they're already driving, I'd take a while guess that they're a little less likely to get out and walk. After all, if the trip they're on weren't so important, they'd have just stayed home to do their drinking, no?

I completely fail to see what value there is, what important interest, public or private, is served, in allowing drinking while driving, or how horrible it can possibly be to infringe someone's liberty by prohibiting it. But I have no trouble at all seeing what interest society has in prohibiting an activity that can so easily be predicted to lead to deaths, injuries and/or property damage.

But hell, as long as anybody's all worked up about not being able to drink while s/he's driving, maybe s/he won't notice what else is being done to him/her.

I was a candidate in a Cdn provincial election many moons ago. I knew that when I walked up to a porchful of newly-enfranchised 18-21 year old men, the first question was going to be "what's your position on beer in corner stores?" (They wanted it. In Ontario, you buy your beer at the Brewer's Retail, which is usually within a few blocks of your home.) Not "what's your position on free trade?", not "what's your position on rising university tuition?", not "what's your party going to do to create jobs and training programs for unemployed youth?" Nope, what did I think about beer in the corner stores.

And so it goes.

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. Your argument seems to me to boil down to the idea

that anything should be banned that might lead to behavior that is destructive to society, rather than just banning the actual behavior that is destructive to society.


"Oh, well, just the public interest in ensuring that people aren't smashed to bits on the road by drivers who have drunk just a tad too much alcohol."

That is the public interest that is served by making driving while intoxicated illegal. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about driving (or sitting in a vehicle) with an open container of alcohol.



That's why it is illegal to stab someone, for example, but not illegal to have a knife. It is illegal to throw a brick through someone's window, but it is not illegal to walk down the street holding a brick.

[iverglas]

29. does it?

Your argument seems to me to boil down to the idea
that anything should be banned that might lead to behavior that is destructive to society, rather than just banning the actual behavior that is destructive to society.

I guess your statement seems to boil down to me to a misrepresentation of my argument. Or perhaps an innocent misunderstanding. Who knows?

Is driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.2 "behaviour that is destructive to society"? I don't see how. People do it all the time with no harm done. I didn't notice; were you suggesting that driving with whatever blood alcohol level one chooses should be legal?

That's why it is illegal to stab someone, for example, but not illegal to have a knife. It is illegal to throw a brick through someone's window, but it is not illegal to walk down the street holding a brick.

Damn -- then why is it illegal to have an open pool of deadly chemicals in one's unfenced backyard? No one might ever fall in. As long as you don't invite anybody to go swimming in it, surely there's no problem.

Hey -- isn't it illegal to possess anthrax? Even if you don't throw it through anybody's window, I think.

There really is a way these things work. The state asserts an interest that it can only reasonably protect by interfering with the exercise of somebody's rights. Then we (and, in the last resort, the courts) see how things balance out. Is the state's interest really really important? Is interfering with the right the only reasonable way to protect it? Is the right interfered with as little as possible to achieve that purpose? Is the individual wanting to exercise the right not likely to suffer any major problems if s/he can't?

Banning the consumption of alcohol by anyone with a driver's licence just wouldn't meet that test. Banning the consumption of alcohol by anyone actually driving a car -- I'm just not seeing a really big problem here. And I still haven't seen anybody explain what that problem might be.

So to get back to your representation of what I said:

... anything should be banned that might lead to behavior that is destructive to society, rather than just banning the actual behavior that is destructive to society.

-- you see, it isn't what I said. I don't recommend banning the consumption of alcohol by anyone with a driver's licence, now, do I?

How it seems to me is that no one but the debilitatingly disingenuous would suggest that there is not a rather high probability that quite a number of people who drink while driving will end up driving drunk -- that the "might lead to", in this case, is not quite an accurate representation of "will in a significant proportion of cases lead to".

If our concern is preventing harm, we might just consider banning the behaviour. If our concern is not interfering with the exercise of individual rights and freedoms, we might just consider not banning it. If our concern is for a reasonable balance between the two, I'm not seeing how we could come down on the side of permitting drinking and driving.

.

[jhfenton]

34. Well put, iverglas

I agree completely with both of your posts. There's no "liberty interest" at stake in drinking and driving. You are free to drink. You are free to drive. You simply are not free to endanger others on the road by doing both simultaneously. It is reasonable to label that as per se reckless behavior and prohibit it.

FWIW, iverglas, I miss your posts down in the Gun Dungeon. :)

[iverglas]

44. ah, but I didn't say that ;)

There's no "liberty interest" at stake in drinking and driving.

I think there certainly is! There is a liberty interest in anything that anybody wants to do. Or doesn't want to do. Whatever.

You simply are not free to endanger others on the road by doing both simultaneously.

You would be -- if no law was made to prohibit it. The law restricts the exercise of the freedom to drink and the freedom to drive by prohibiting the doing of them simultaneously.

The issue, very simply put, is whether that interest outweighs the state's (public's, society's) interest in the individual not doing it (or doing it).

And in this case, precisely because of the risk -- the risk of the harm materializing possibly being low, but the harm that might materialize being significant -- society's interests very arguably outweigh the individual's.

May I just say that I'm not missing the gun dungeon too much, and that in this case I'll place my individual interest in getting some work done occasionally, and suffering a lower level of overall irritation, above its collective interest in receiving the benefit of my vast knowledge and unparalleled wisdom. ;)

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. I think so, but perhaps I overgeneralized.

I guess your statement seems to boil down to me to a misrepresentation of my argument. Or perhaps an innocent misunderstanding. Who knows?

There is nothing to be gained by implying that I am deliberately misrepresenting your argument. Simply state your case.

Is driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.2 "behaviour that is destructive to society"? I don't see how.

I'm not sure if you skipped a zero, or what. Did you mean to say '0.02'? If so, then I don't see that as destructive either, and I never said nor meant to imply it was. If you meant to say '0.2', I understand your argument even less - do you really mean to say that driving with a .2 blood alcohol level ( assuming it didn't kill you first) - is not destructive anti-social behavior?

People do it all the time with no harm done. I didn't notice; were you suggesting that driving with whatever blood alcohol level one chooses should be legal?


I am suggesting that it should be illegal to drive with a blood alcohol level that is higher than the legal limit for the jurisdiction in which you are driving.

A radical notion, I admit :eyes:.


Damn -- then why is it illegal to have an open pool of deadly chemicals in one's unfenced backyard? No one might ever fall in. As long as you don't invite anybody to go swimming in it, surely there's no problem.

Well for one thing deadly chemicals have an unfortunate tendency to leach into the soil and groundwater, negatively affecting the health and safety of those not on your property. That is one reason why the state has a compelling interest in regulating the manner in which they are stored. Migratory birds are also likely to land on what looks like an open body of water, negatively impacting a common resource. I'm sure there are many other reasons as well, that the storage of toxic chemicals is legitimately regulated by the government.

Hey -- isn't it illegal to possess anthrax? Even if you don't throw it through anybody's window, I think.

Is it? There may be a lot of sheep farmers breaking the law who don't even know it. Is it against the law to possess anthrax? I don't know. What law are you refering to?



You are correct that I should not have generalized by using the word 'anything':

... anything should be banned that might lead to behavior that is destructive to society, rather than just banning the actual behavior that is destructive to society.

You weren't talking about 'anything' you were talking about a specific case of something that is not in itself destructive to society, but might lead to destructive behavior. Mea culpa.

[iverglas]

54. you did indeed

It simply is not part of civil, or friendly, discourse to infer things from what people say that are not supported by what they said. And it's something that goes on at DU far too much for my liking, and that makes me very testy. See the exchange up top for another illustration.

You weren't talking about 'anything' you were talking about a specific case of something that is not in itself destructive to society, but might lead to destructive behavior. Mea culpa.

Okey dokey. (That's your characterization of the behaviour rather than mine, but that's fine.)

I'm not sure if you skipped a zero, or what. Did you mean to say '0.02'? If so, then I don't see that as destructive either, and I never said nor meant to imply it was. If you meant to say '0.2', I understand your argument even less - do you really mean to say that driving with a .2 blood alcohol level ( assuming it didn't kill you first) - is not destructive anti-social behavior?

Pull back there. Nobody said anything about "anti-social" behaviour. What you said was destructive to society. Let's stick with that.

I did indeed mean 0.2. That was the blood alcohol level of the fellow I apprehended getting out of and then into a car in front of my home a couple of years ago, called the cops on, and assisted the cops in tracking as he drove around the neighbourhood with his headlights off eluding them.

(btw, 0.02 *is* the legal limit in Sweden and Norway, and in a couple of the obscure 'stans, and the Czech Republic, it is just plain 0: http://www.icap.org/international/bac.html
A 160-pound man hits 0.2 after 8 drinks in 8 hours -- fewer drinks in less time, of course: http://www.studhlth.pitt.edu/studenthealthed_wbpage/Alcohol/links/page51.html
A long drive could be problematic ...)

But he didn't hit a single pedestrian or vehicle ... and he didn't drive his car into my front porch as one of his fellow travellers did a few years before that. (Best course of action: abandon the car, where I will find it at 2 a.m. on coming home, call the cops, and have a cop knock at my door and brusquely ask "is that your car out there?" Duh.)

He did nothing any more destructive to society than someone with a blood alcohol level of 0.02 swigging a six-pack as he drives down the highway. And yet -- what he did was illegal. We've made it illegal. We prosecuted and punished him. (I assume; after the second time I showed up in court for no purpose, I heard no more so I imagine he pleaded guilty eventually.)

Same thing for my pool of chemicals, which I meant to put in a sealed concrete basin before presenting it to you. Sure, a migratory bird *might* land in it. But it might not. Why should I be prohibited from having the enjoyment of the view of my pool of chemicals because of something that *might* happen, not even something that I would have caused to happen? What are you going to do next -- make me surround my house with barbed wire in case someone burgles it and trips on the staircase and hurts him/herself?

Let's call the anthrax "plutonium" or some other regulated substance, I don't care which. Something I could own all my life and no one would ever be harmed by. (And if anyone were, it would only be because s/he had stolen it from me, and how could that be *my* fault, and why should *I* be punished by being prohibited from owning it?) Still prohibited from owning it.

So you see, when you say things like:

That is one reason why the state has a compelling interest in regulating the manner in which <the deadly chemicals> are stored.

... aren't you just punishing me for something that might happen and that my behaviour didn't even cause?

The state's compelling interest in regulating the storage of deadly chemicals stems from its interest in protecting public health and safety from the reasonably foreseeable and serious harm that could result from it, even if the risk of that harm occurring is slight. Sounds much like its interest in prohibiting drinking and driving, to me. ;)

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

81. You are really stretching here.

First of all, any discussion of people driving with a .2 limit is merely a smokescreen, since I have clearly stated that this is not about, in any way shape or form, people driving while intoxicated.

You can keep talking about that - but it is simply off-topic.

You can attempt to insinuate that I am arguing in favor of driving while drunk - but I'm not.


As far as your distinction be 'anti-social behavior' and 'behavior destructive to society' -- I will leave the semantics to you. I don't think anyone is confused about what I meant when I used those terms.

I think it is right and proper that driving while intoxicated is illegal, and as far as I can tell, so do you.


Same thing for my pool of chemicals, which I meant to put in a sealed concrete basin before presenting it to you. Sure, a migratory bird *might* land in it. But it might not. Why should I be prohibited from having the enjoyment of the view of my pool of chemicals because of something that *might* happen, not even something that I would have caused to happen? What are you going to do next -- make me surround my house with barbed wire in case someone burgles it and trips on the staircase and hurts him/herself?

Well if you seal it in a concrete basin, you may very well be following the regulations. You obviously agree with me that there needs to be a balance between law and regulation on the one hand, and individual freedom on the other. Where we disagree is where that balance lies on the specific issue of open container laws.


Let's call the anthrax "plutonium" or some other regulated substance, I don't care which. Something I could own all my life and no one would ever be harmed by. (And if anyone were, it would only be because s/he had stolen it from me, and how could that be *my* fault, and why should *I* be punished by being prohibited from owning it?) Still prohibited from owning it.

If you are talking about 'Something I could own all my life and no one would ever be harmed by.' -- then no, I don't think possession of such a substance should be regulated. However, neither a pool of toxic chemicals, nor plutonium fit that category.


That is one reason why the state has a compelling interest in regulating the manner in which <the deadly chemicals> are stored.

... aren't you just punishing me for something that might happen and that my behaviour didn't even cause?


Regulation is not punishment.



The state's compelling interest in regulating the storage of deadly chemicals stems from its interest in protecting public health and safety from the reasonably foreseeable and serious harm that could result from it, even if the risk of that harm occurring is slight. Sounds much like its interest in prohibiting drinking and driving, to me.

It is clear that we agree that sometimes laws are necessary to protect public health and safety. I'm guessing we also agree that storage of some toxic chemicals should be regulated by the state. What we disagree about is whether open container laws are necessary to protect public safety.

Which is why instead of talking about the effects of open container laws -- the topic of the thread -- you are talking about toxic chemical storage, anthrax, plutonium, and people driving with blood alcohol levels way over the legal limit.

[iverglas]

90. I just don't find this all that difficult

We outlaw "stabbing people", as you noted.

Stabbing people, in our view, is "causing harm".

"Driving while intoxicated" is NOT equivalent to "stabbing people", no matter how much you think it should be illegal.

"Possessing plutonium" is NOT equivalent to "stabbing people".

People drive while intoxicated ALL THE TIME without causing any harm at all.

People could possess plutonium for decades without causing any harm at all.

And people could drive down the road swigging from a six-pack for hours without causing any harm at all.

How can you seriously advance the proposition that "driving while intoxicated" is LIKE "stabbing people", if that is what you are saying??

We prohibit driving while intoxicated in order to PREVENT a RISK of foreseeable harm from occurring. That is NOT why we prohibit stabbing people: we prohibit that to prevent harm from occurring.

(Of course, in both cases, laws don't actually "prevent" anything -- the threat of punishment that they carry with them deters people from doing things.)

There are dozens and thousands of things that we outlaw in order to prevent a risk of foreseeable harm from occurring. Like speeding, and building unsafe bridges, and shouting "fire" in crowded theatres.

Speeding does not cause harm -- it creates a risk of harm occurring; no harm occurs unless that risk materializes. Actually, what it does is INCREASE the ever-present risk of harm occurring; there's a risk of harm occurring in everything we do. We outlaw speeding to REDUCE THE RISK. We regulate behaviour.

Outlawing drinking while driving is EXACTLY the same as outlawing speeding or the building of unsafe bridges or shouting "fire" in crowded theatres ... or being in possession of house-breaking tools, which my criminal law prohibits and I'll bet yours does.

The behaviour increases the risk of harm occurring. The individual engaging in the behaviour might not be the one whose behaviour leads to harm -- but overall, the risk increases if individuals engage in it.

The relevant thing is not whether you and I happen to be of the opinion that drunk driving should be illegal, or that drinking while driving should not be illegal.

What is relevant is the interest that society is trying to protect by outlawing them and the rationality of the prohibition as a means of achieving that purpose, and the importance of the rights violated, and the extent of the violation of rights that outlawing the behaviour entails.

What we disagree about is whether open container laws are necessary to protect public safety.

And the standard for making that determination is really NOT whether the law is "necessary". It would be virtually impossible to meet that standard, for any behaviour one might think of.

Regulation is not punishment.

Exactly. I was harkening back to the early post in the thread about "guilty until proved innocent". But the point is that regulation is also not required to meet the same kind of standards as punishment -- there is no requirement for "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that the regulation (and only the regulation) will achieve the stated, legitimate aim.

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

94. You used a lot of words in order to reaffirm

that we both agree that sometimes laws are necessary to protect public health and safety and that we disagree about whether open container laws are necessary to protect public safety.


Your seizing on my use of the word 'necessary' as if that meant I was making some type of absolutist argument that I'm not making does not impress me.


It's about balancing the public and individual good, and we disagree as to where that balance lies in this specific instance. Why you are unable to admit that we actually share some middle ground on this topic is perplexing to me.

[iverglas]

100. agreeing and disagreeing

It's about balancing the public and individual good, and we disagree as to where that balance lies in this specific instance. Why you are unable to admit that we actually share some middle ground on this topic is perplexing to me.

I've never exhibited inability to "admit" any such thing!

My entire point is, as it almost always is, that individual opinions are pretty much worthless unless they are reached by applying the criteria that have to be applied.

If I were opposed to outlawing the keeping of deadly chemicals in one's back yard "because deadly chemicals smell nice", would anybody pay attention to me? If I were opposed to speeding laws "because the wind in my hair feels so nice!", ditto? If I advocated speeding laws "because people who speed are assholes", ditto?

There are criteria that apply when "balancing the public and individual good" -- it really is just *not* all a matter of opinion, not in the real world as opposed to the "my utopia" world.

Advocating a law or policy means accepting and operating by the real-world rules. Within those rules, there is obviously room for disagreement, and there is seldom a solution that must be adopted. A state that operates by the rule that all human beings are free and equal must outlaw, say, slavery, and must outlaw assaulting children as well as adults. But it could decide not to outlaw speeding or not to outlaw speeding, both without breaking its own rules.

Whether, in the case of drinking and driving, the state's interest is sufficiently compelling to justify outlawing it (infringing individual freedoms) isn't *just* a matter of opinion.

The thing is, all I've seen you do, I'm pretty sure, is state your opinion -- not explain why, in your opinion, the state isn't justified in outlawing it. You talk about "balancing the individual and public good", and you don't explain how your solution does that better than another.

I think I've explained why I think such an infringement of rights is justified, according to the generally accepted rules -- it is an absolutely minimal infringement of the individual's rights, the individual's interest in drinking and driving is minor if not completely bloody non-existent apart from some kind of "it makes me feel good" thing (I frankly can't imagine what interest anyone has in doing it), there is a significant state interest in public safety, drinking and driving can be reasonably foreseen to result in some harm to that interest, prohibiting drinking and driving can be demonstrated to be rationally connected to a reduction of harm, regulating behaviour to reduce the risk of harm is a reasonable and justifiable way of addressing the potentially harmful effects of behaviour, etc.

Where's the counter-argument??

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

102. Counter argument to what?

I personally think everything that is not prohibited, is allowed. I don't think it is the responsibility of the citizens to come up with reasons why the government should not limit their behavior, rather, I believe that the government has a responsibility to its citizens, to justify the limitations it imposes. You may be approaching this from a different philosophical mindset - fine.

I have indeed stated reasons why I don't think open containers should be banned in vehicles -- most notably in the initial post.

I accept the fact that you don't find those reasons persuasive -- and I am absolutely positive that you won't find anything I have to say on the subject persuasive.

No doubt when the Montana legislature meets again, we will have this debate again in Helena. And I will argue for common-sense. But I also have no doubt that eventually, those in favor of open container laws will prevail, perhaps after some threats from the feds to withhold highway money.

[iverglas]

103. not getting it

I have indeed stated reasons why I don't think open containers should be banned in vehicles -- most notably in the initial post.

Here's what the opening post said:

Here in Montana, we do not have an open container law. Consequently, you can go fishing and then sit in your pickup and share a beer with your buddy afterwards. You can also drive home from a picnic with a wine bottle from which you have only drunk a a few sips.

Driving down the interstate while doing tequila shots is also ok.

The only time you are in danger of breaking the law is if you drive while intoxicated, i.e. if your blood alcohol exceeds the legal limit.

If you can identify for me what, in that post, is a reason why you don't think that open containers should be banned in vehicles (not forgetting that the issue you raised for discussion was whether drinking and driving should be banned), I'd be grateful.

A statement of fact is not always a reason. "Apples are red" is not a reason for eating apples. A statement of what one can currently do is not an argument against prohibiting it. "I can now legally own slaves" is not an argument against abolishing slavery.

I personally think everything that is not prohibited, is allowed.

Well, and of course you're right. It's kind of a tautology. However, it doesn't say anything about what should or may be prohibited.

I don't think it is the responsibility of the citizens to come up with reasons why the government should not limit their behavior, rather, I believe that the government has a responsibility to its citizens, to justify the limitations it imposes.

Well, yeah, although of course, as usual, I find this distinction between "government" and "citizens" pretty specious. How'd the government become the government?

The rules that I have paraphrased and summarized address this very thing. They put the onus on the government to provide some minimal justification for its proposed limitations. If there are good reasons for the limitations, and no really conceivable reasons not to have the limitations, then that's good enough. Thou shalt not shoot guns in the air in the city. Duh. What more needs to be said, eh?

If there *are* reasons not to have the limitations, then the balancing starts. It seems to me that you're just covering your ears and going wah-wah when people offer reasons for the limitations you object to.

The way it works is that we don't just stay stuck in the starting box, saying "what justification is there for limiting the exercise of this right?", and then not addressing the justification that is offered -- either by rebutting it or by demonstrating that it is not sufficient. That is, you take the justification offered, and you say "this is not a valid state purpose", or "what you want to do is not likely to achieve or assist in achieving that purpose", or "I have an important interest in doing what you want to prohibit, and the interference with my interest outweighs the small advancement of the public interest that your prohibition will achieve", and so on. Have you?

Because it interferes with my ability to do what I want just is NOT a response to a statement of the reasons for interfering in that ability. It isn't a reason for not imposing the prohibition that outweighs the reasons for imposing it. And I really and truly don't know what other reasons you have offered.

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

105. I do 'get it' -- I just disagree with you.

It is possible, you know, for two people to both 'get it' about a subject and still disagree.

I don't find anything you've said in your post compelling enough to be worth responding to however -- we've already covered all this ground. I feel no need to repeat myself, or rephrase my earlier posts. I understand your arguments, and I disagree them for the same reasons I stated earlier.

And I'm not willing to get upset at your characterization of me:
"you're just covering your ears and going wah-wah "

nor am I immature enough to reply in kind.


One thing I am willing to repeat however, out of curiousity, is the straightforward question you were unwilling to answer upthread:

Are you in favor of on board breathalyzers?



The funny thing is that I am less curious about your answer, than I am about your reluctance to answer -- THAT is something that I "don't get", lol.

[iverglas]

107. nope, nothing there

If you could refer me to the posts in which you have set out the argument that prohibiting drinking while driving is not justified, I'd be grateful.

So far, I'm still seeing nothing but "I don't like your reasons", which isn't argument.

One thing I am willing to repeat however, out of curiousity, is the straightforward question you were unwilling to answer upthread:

Are you in favor of on board breathalyzers?

The answer, the first time it was asked, was not straightforward, despite your adoption of my statement that I was quite willing to answer straightforward questions. It was part of a pattern of a kind of question and questioner that I am familiar with, but you perhaps are not. Saying to someone "Are you actually ...", when the person being addressed has said nothing to suggest that s/he is "...", is not a straightforward question.

The post I had written had absolutely nothing to do with my opinion about on-board breathalyzers. It was about the statement that imposing a requirement for them amounted to making individuals "guilty until proved innocent", which is a nonsense.

If I read a post by someone challenging the statement "horses are blue", made by someone advocating that horses not be eaten, in which the poster demonstrated that horses are brown, I would never think of saying to him/her: "are you actually in favour of eating horses?" -- implying that something s/he had said indicated that s/he was in favour of eating horses, else why the hell would anyone ask whether s/he was "actually" in favour it it?

Your "again" post implied that I had been asked a question that deserved an answer. I had not.

At that point I lost interest. I just don't answer questions from anyone when the questioner's obvious intent is not to learn my answer so that an issue can be discussed, but to characterize my words, my position or me without regard to what they actually are. You, perhaps unfortunately and perhaps unwittingly, joined the game that I wasn't playing.

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

108. So your straightforward answer to the question is - what?

Are you in favor of on board breathalyzers?


What is your answer? I missed it.

[Sorwen]

32. I think those are bad analogies

Drinking while driving is not equivalent to just having a knife. I think it's more like throwing knives blindfolded while hoping not to hit anyone. If you're drinking while driving, there's a good chance you could end up drunk. As I'm sure you're aware, drinking causes you to become drunk, whereas holding a knife does not cause you to stab someone.

Too many people die on the roads, and we need to take driving much more seriously. I can't believe anyone would defend the right to drink while driving. I generally defend the rights of people to do stupid things (such as using drugs, etc), but only when the victim is themselves, not when they're putting the lives of others in danger.

[TankLV]

19. I really don't know - never have - have to as bush*, pickles, cheeney

and the rest of the convicted drunks in this gang of thugs occupying Al Gore's House (soon to be Kerry's House) - they're the ones with the "experience".

"HEY PICKLES - DO YOU THINK DRUNKS LIKE YOU AND YOUR IDIOT HUSBAND AND HIS VP SHOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO DRIVE?"

[sendero]

25. IMHO, it is a moot point.

I don't know about other states, but in Texas there is a law against "public intoxication". A police officer, upon seeing you act drunk or just drinking, can decide you are intoxicated and arrest you. Theoretically, he has to apply the "field sobriety test", but trust me the interpretation of your success is totally up to him and if he wants to arrest you he will.

You won't get a breathalyzer or blood test, because it is not necessary to be legally intoxicated to be arrested for PI.

That said, I think it is a bad idea to drink while driving, I'm just making the point that it often doesn't make a lot of difference what the law is, police have a lot of latitude in certain situations.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. It's not moot because every time the Legislature meets in Montana,

someone tries to pass an open-container law. So far, unsuccessfully.


And as I stated before, you are talking about driving while intoxicated, which is already illegal in Montana, as it should be.


Of course, police also are in the position to use discretion, or follow the letter of the law, or abuse their authority -- that's one of the reasons we have courts.

[sendero]

33. NO...

... I am not talking about DUI. DUI is a separate offense that must be proven by a blood alcohol test or breathalyzer test.

A public intoxication charge is brought at the discretion of an officer. You could have had one sip of beer, if the officer thinks you are intoxicated he can arrest you, period.

I realize this does not apply to Montana, which seems to be a world of its own anyway, much like Texas.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. That law would never get passed in Montana, imho.

If you are enunciating it correctly.

But anyway it is besides the point. Of course the police can arrest you 'at their discretion' -- on any charge they want. As someone who has been falsely arrested before, I can testify to that. The question is what the law is, and whether you broke it, and that is decided in court, not when you are arrested.

So if in Texas, you are arrested for public intoxication -- are you automatically guilty? Or does the state have to follow the normal court process and prove that you were guilty if you do not plead so?

[Pithlet]

27. I voted yes, and here's why.

If you're drinking in a bar, and you suddenly realize you've had a few more than you thought, and you're drunk, you can take steps to avoid driving. If you're drinking while you're driving, and lose count, you're already behind the wheel and a danger to others on the road. Since there's no way to discern if someone was actually drinking from the open container, then a ban on all open containers is necessary. I'm sorry, but I just don't think it is that much of an infringement to tell me I have to wait until I'm not actively driving to enjoy a drink. Those who cannot wait have a serious problem.

I do not want to be out on the road with drivers who are swilling their beer or slamming shots.

[rbnyc]

65. Good Point!

I agree 100%.

[absyntheNsugar]

31. The question is not whether it should be illegal

but whether the current punishment fits the crime. I say no. There is a huge difference between being .02, .06 and .09

Also, it should not be a life destroying sentence as it is now.

[HootieMcBoob]

36. I think it should be mandatory

:dunce:

[Piperay]

37. It IS illegal here in CA

to drink and drive or even have an open container in your car, even the passenger cannot drink alcohol in a car whether it is moving or parked.

[ButterflyBlood]

39. yes

when I'm out drinking at parties, I usually don't get drunk until awhile after I've had a few drinks. You don't know when to stop while driving.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

40. I have a whole different take on this

I think it should be illegal, but not because it's alcohol. I think it should be illegal for the same reason that I think cell phone use while driving should be illegal. It's distracting, it leads to car accidents. (and that's a bad thing)

[seabeyond]

48. then children in backseat

should be illegal too. anyone with kids in the back seat fighting and turn around and seperate kids and yell at them to knock it off i am driving.

accidents happen. and the laws we have for what could happen are outrages. we have become obsessive in keeping all safe in all circumstances and it cannot be done.

for a very small percentage of something happening to anyone in a number of situations adn all are penalized and given a rule to follow

[Pithlet]

58. Accidents happen.

And will continue to happen for a variety of reasons.

You can't make kids in cars illegal because we're too reliant on automobiles to function in our society. The burden it would put on families to enact such a ban would far outweigh any benefits. The risk/benefit ratio is nowhere near the same as it is for banning open containers.

Besides, no one is calling for a ban on alcohol. They're simply saying that a law banning drinking while driving is not an undue burden on anyone, and the benefits to society, safer roads, makes such a ban reasonable.

[seabeyond]

68. it is the punishment i am having issue with

i believe.........we are becoming to the point of cruel with punishment. i believe, we are no longer punishment fitting the crime on this cause of our hysteria on it

all, that have never had alcohol and gotten behind the wheel, raise hands

i am not a drinker, dont like booze. but i am seeing a whiplash in extreme on this and many issues.

[Pithlet]

82. It isn't a punishment

to require people to wait until they are no longer operating a vehicle to drink. I just don't see how extreme it is to tell people they can't drink alcohol while driving. I think having safer roads where people aren't boozing it up while they're driving far outweighs the inconvenience of having to wait. The public has an interest in making sure the roads are safe. Driving while drunk is bad, and drinking while driving increases the chance that you will drive drunk. Yes, I do believe you can go too far, but I don't think you can even see too far from this point.

[RoeBear]

49. And pop and any other food item...

...also? Can I still chew gum?

[POed_Ex_Repub]

52. Gum is okay...

I used to date someone who liked to eat while driving about 80 mph. She had NO HANDS on the wheel. Now tell me that it isn't dangerous? :scared:

[rbnyc]

69. As long as you're not fishing through your glove compartment...

...to find it while driving. Seriously, you're operating a giant killing machine. I think your right to eat, drink, and chew gum is pretty insignificant.

[seabeyond]

73. the lady pulled side of road

to get on her cell phone only to be hit by a man that leaned down to pick up something on the floor.........hm

stuff happens

[rbnyc]

66. Bingo! (NT)

[Exultant Democracy]

50. What if you aren't drinking but the other passengers want to?

This is also an interesting question for states with open container laws.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. Perfectly legal in Montana.

Unless some other law is being broken.

[Pithlet]

62. Allowing passengers

to have open containers creates a loophole. If someone is pulled over, all they have to do is hand the container to their buddy. I don't know if all open container laws are the same, but from my experience it meant no containers, driver or otherwise. It just doesn't create that much of a hassle. What is wrong with waiting until you're no longer in a vehicle being driven? To me, it is worth it to have safer roads. States that have enacted that law obviously feel the same way.

[Exultant Democracy]

70. Well lets say you are on a road trip

you have a huge van or even a moter home and some of the people are having dinner and want to have a few drinks?

I'm just playing devils advocate here I don't really have a strong opinion. On one hand drunk driving is a very bad thing and people should be protected from it. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with someone who has not intention to drive to drink, and anyone who would trade liberty for security deserves nither.

[rbnyc]

74. It's not quite a matter of liberty...

...as the inside of a vehicle is a privileged environment.

I think if it's some kind of camper, where the living area is clearly separated from the driving area, I may possibly make an exception to my no-where-but-in-the-trunk rule. But I'm not keen on a 2-ton 60 mph party either. Driving is serious business. Have your dinner party when you're parked, IMO.

[Exultant Democracy]

89. Well in states with open container laws

even if the car is parked it would still be illegal.

[rbnyc]

67. If they can't wait, they have a problem.

I also think that drinking and or drunk passengers are a distraction to the driver. I would limit many other activities in moving vehicles as well.

[ButterflyBlood]

75. I would ban alcohol in the front seat

but not in the back. it would make it harder to just hand the alcohol to the passenger in the back, or you could lower the BAL level if alcohol is being had in the back.

[Pithlet]

80. Bad idea.

I wouldn't want to add turning away from the wheel to pass alcohol to the backseat to avoid getting in trouble on top of being intoxicated. It just isn't that big of a deal to wait until you aren't driving, or are a passenger in a vehicle.

[Ediacara]

55. I SHOULD POINT OUT...

Most cities and towns DO have open container laws. The state as a whole does NOT have an open container law, which among other things, prompted MADD to give Montana the only F grade in the whole country!

I think this is completely insane, and lawmakers who vote against open container laws are should be run out of town on a rail and dumped into Little Prickly Pear Creek Canyon!

[rbnyc]

57. I think it should be more difficult to get and maintain a drivers license

...in general. Too many people drive, and way too many people drive badly. People need to realize that every time they get behind the wheel, they have people's lives in their hands. There should be no open alcohol anywhere in a vehicle save the trunk. Drivers should not be on the phone, eating, reading, putting on make-up. People with a certain amount of moving violations should not be able to renew their licenses without re-taking written and behind-the-wheel tests. And people with a certain number of moving violations should have their licenses suspended or revoked, depending on the number and nature of the violations. I don't think driving is a right. I think it's a privilege that people do not consider with nearly enough gravity.

[seabeyond]

71. hitler state

that is what i want. rah.............

they had speed limit at 55 for a couple reasons, gas rationing and revenue. i swear after a handful of years they were seeing more people falling asleep at the wheel, that speed being to slow for the highways and they raised the speed. i know my comfort zone on speeds on roads, and after 26 years of driving and no accidents, i think i can trust self. unfortunately it is faster than 55.

so i should have a challenge getting a drivers liscense affecting getting kids to school grocery a total mess up of my life, cause i dont foolow a silly rule that was changed cause they knew it was wrong

or should i be patted on the back for not being a sheep following a stupid *ss law just cause i was told when i knew it wasnt safe for me.

55 i am distracted bored looking around not paying attention and focused, 80, i am on it, and comfortable and in zone

[rbnyc]

76. Well, I may not have lost my baby....

...if the person who hit me weren't speeding. If you get bored driving at 55 to the point that it makes you a dangerous driver, you should take yourself off the road.

Cute mention of Hitler, btw.

[Pithlet]

77. The cavalier attitude

that some people have towards driving scares me.

[rbnyc]

79. Me too!

:hi:

Hi pithlet.

[seabeyond]

88. please dont give me cavalier

i am not. your experience though doesnt leave much room for me to express to you my issue with this.

i have been driving over 25 years, and always when i get behind that wheel strongly i know my responsibility to fellow travelers and the kids i haul around.

there is a road just outside of town, 70 mph, and goes into a curve, with cars coming across in an intersection. there have been more accidents there. and i drive that road and tell boys, see here, this shouldnt be this fast, this is one of the few roads i have been on that i am uncomfortable with the speed, it should be lower. i dont trust the signs telling me safety,............i trust my self.

if i am driving a mountain road that says 40, and i am not comfortable, i am going to go slower.

they have dropped the alcohol level to .08. (i am a non drinker) you say wait til you get wherever to drink. well at .08 i ask you is that a glass of wine. do i dare get in the car. they want to drop it lower. this isnt impaired and they want to drop it lower. yet, what we can do with this to a persons life. that is a greater responsibility, dont you think. the person gets stopped for nothing to do with poor driving, but smell alchol on breath, their whole lives can be ruined.

so my suggestion and easy for me cause i dont drink, is be careful, that one glass, two glass of wine, could take you down

this drinking issue isnt about me, it is what we are doing to people out of fear. and how we are willing to ruin lives, over fear.

as i said, how many have gone out for a glass of wine, two beers, and gotten in the car. in a lifetime. i am talking those that are my age, 25 years, ever

for the grace of god there go i.

[Pithlet]

93. It's not necessarily your ability I doubt.

Although I don't know you personally, and have never driven with you, so I can't really say. I'm quite confident I can handle a car at 80 miles per hour, myself. I think a lot of people probably have that same confidence. But, when considering general pubic safety, limits have to be set. I'm not comfortable with the majority of drivers handling driving at 80 miles per hour. I think if speed limits are raised too high, it creates a dangerous situation on the highways.

It isn't just fear; there are physics involved here. The faster an object is going, the greater the damage when that object comes to a sudden stop. It also requires quicker hand eye coordination, and more focused concentration to drive at higher speeds. It isn't fear that drives speed limits, it is facts. If we let everyone decide to set their own personal speed limit, everyone would think they were perfectly capable of handling high speeds. Many would be wrong, and accidents would skyrocket.

[seabeyond]

84. from my heart

i am sorry for your experience,......and never would i make light, nor debate you on the subject. further, i could not even imagine what you go thru.

i understand your position...

[rbnyc]

98. Thanks so much.

To be fair, I probably should have admitted from the start that my position has become more severe since the accident. I spent my summer and fall relearning how to walk and grieving because of 2 drivers who acted irresponsibly. It's hard to separate my attitude from that experience.

I really appreciate your post. It's very kind of you.

[Pithlet]

72. The reason why it isn't

is outside of metropolitan areas, it is very difficult to get by without the ability to drive. Therefore, taking away a driver's privilege very seriously limits them. I don't disagree with you. I do believe it should be made tougher. Getting the bad drivers off the road would make them much safer. But, until communities adopt public transit, and become more pedestrian friendly, law makers will be hesitant to revoke driving privileges except under the most egregious driving offenses. As long as oil companies and automakers want us dependent, and are very powerful, it will be unlikely that too many communities will change. It's a vicious loop.

[rbnyc]

78. Your point is important.

It's our driving culture that produces these unsafe conditions. I believe driving is a privilege, but that IS a hard position to take when it may mean that a person can't get to work.

I do have to add tho, that I have never driven and I've lived all over the country including out in the middle of nowhere, and I always found a way to get around. But more public transportation needs to be available.

EDIT: typo

[Feanorcurufinwe]

99. Closest poll I've ever posted!

cool.... will it stay 50/50 ?


I wonder if I'd worded the question "Should open containers be illegal?" it the results would hav been different...

[sweetheart]

104. yes its the wording

the "yes" answer should say open container, as
"drink and drive" is
misleading.

I'm thinking of having a poll asking "Are DU polls accurate in their
representation of opinion?"

Then my options are:

1. "Yes"

2. "I hate dogs and if it were legal, would shoot them all dead."

I'm thinking i could get 100% "Yes" and prove it once and for all.

:-)

[Ladyhawk]

109. Once you've had too much to drink, you often think you're sober.

Recently, I took too many prescription drugs. I knew I had taken too many prescription drugs, but decided to drive, anyway. It was a bad decision, made under the influence. I figured I was fine. I wasn't fine. I got caught by the police. By every right, they should have arrested me, but they didn't. It was the first and only time I've driven under the influence, but it sure was an eye opener. Being under the influence can make you think you are JUST FINE TO DRIVE.

My vote: drinking and driving should be illegal.

I really could have hurt someone.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

110. Do you think they did the right thing in not arresting you?

And did they let you drive yourself home?

[Ladyhawk]

112. I am not sure if they did the *right* thing.

But I'm thankful they did not arrest me. I could go into reasons why it was probably best for all involved that they didn't arrest me, but it would require divulging some very personal information.

I'm very thankful I did not hurt anyone. I doubt I could have forgiven myself had that happened.

And no, they didn't let me drive myself home.

Anyway, I learned my lesson. Drugs/Alcohol = No driving

There are some Rx drugs I take as a daily regimen that don't affect me adversely. You can bet I gauged my response to normal amounts very carefully before driving.

By the way, this is the worst thing I've ever done in my life and I'm not proud of it.