Crapo arrested on DUI

[SPC]

many more people get killed in accidents that have nothing to do with alcohol.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'deterrence' is a false flag myth designed to perpetuate the prison-industrial complex.

So what if people get killed in accidents that have nothing to do with alcohol? That doesn't mean drunk driving should be legal. I'm guessing you are the type that drives drunk.

What level of statistically-increased danger is acceptable to criminalize? Should it be illegal to change the station on the radio since that increases the chances of an accident occuring?

[SPC]

so rather than being concerned about its concrete effect, you are concerned about some magical and unnamed quality it has that requires it to be prohibited.

By that logic, you could say that robbery should be legal, as long as the statistical odds of it happening to an individual were low enough, but that really isn't a good enough reason for robbery to be legal. 

Other drivers and pedestrians have a right to be safe from impaired drivers.

The difference is that you are comparing something that is intrisically a crime, such as theft, to something that has an increased likelyhood of becoming a crime, namely driving with alcohol in the bloodstream. While I will not contest that driving with alcohol in one's bloodstream is likely to increase the risk of impaired driving, the two are not inherently synonymous, despite what mass classical conditioning would have you believe. If a sober elderly woman drives just as poorly as an intoxicated man, and poses just as much of a danger to other motorists, shouldn't the former's erratic driving be just as valid a reason to suspend driving priviledges as the latter's erratic driving? If so, then what increase in the probability of a fatal accident (i.e. what level of impairment, regardless of BAC) is reason enough to justify suspension of driving priviledges?

[SPC]

Nice use of the twilight fallacy (completely unrelated to stupid sparkling vampires) by SPC there.

Care to define, since I cannot identify the "twilight fallacy" on any list of logical fallacies?

[SPC]

It is more or less arguing that because it's hard to set a clear line when something becomes something else, there is no difference between any point of the spectrum. The name comes from one arguing that there is no difference between night and day, because it's difficult to pick an exact point when this change occurs ("twilight" referring to the transition period here.)

That wasn't my argument. I was genuinely asking how to measure impairment without using an alcohol-specific scale (and even then one cannot use BAC as a measure of impairment since people who drink a lot require higher levels to experience impairment, as anyone who's ever been to a party could tell you.) It would be far more reasonable to temporarily suspend driving privileges if it if evident that one is driving erratically and poses a danger to others, regardless of whether that individual has met an arbitrary threshold of alcohol in their bloodstream. To arrest someone driving normally with a BAC of .09 while giving a lesser punishment (if any) to someone driving dangerously while sober does not make sense from a public safety perspective, although such a standard makes sense from a prohibitionist mindset.

[SPC]

It is more or less arguing that because it's hard to set a clear line when something becomes something else, there is no difference between any point of the spectrum. The name comes from one arguing that there is no difference between night and day, because it's difficult to pick an exact point when this change occurs ("twilight" referring to the transition period here.)

That wasn't my argument. I was genuinely asking how to measure impairment without using an alcohol-specific scale (and even then one cannot use BAC as a measure of impairment since people who drink a lot require higher levels to experience impairment, as anyone who's ever been to a party could tell you.) It would be far more reasonable to temporarily suspend driving privileges if it if evident that one is driving erratically and poses a danger to others, regardless of whether that individual has met an arbitrary threshold of alcohol in their bloodstream. To arrest someone driving normally with a BAC of .09 while giving a lesser punishment (if any) to someone driving dangerously while sober does not make sense from a public safety perspective, although such a standard makes sense from a prohibitionist mindset.

Well there is a "reckless driving" offense. And if you are able to drive normal at BAC 0.09, you won't get pulled over. The problem is the amount of people who THINK they can drive normal at such a level is quite a bit higher than those who actually can, so some sort of limit is needed. It's much like speed limits in that sense, we all know driving at 56mph in a 55 mph zone isn't particularly dangerous or a huge threat, but some limit is obviously needed.

Technically true, but if someone driving normally at .09 is pulled over for a different offense (e.g. a broken taillight), would he not be arrested for DUI despite driving normally? Even if not, I fail to see how whether or not the cause of the reckless driving is alcohol related is relevant to constitute a separate offense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I prefer Montana's old speed limits, if you want to use that analogy.