Crapo arrested on DUI

[DrScholl]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57560668-10391739/sen-michael-crapo-arrested-on-dui-in-virginia/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DrScholl]

Considering that a lot of people have been killed in drunk driving accidents, jail time is more than reasonable. The laws aren't structured good enough to even be a deterrent to someone getting behind the wheel drunk.

[DrScholl]

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.

[DrScholl]

Driving should be illegal, full stop.

I'm not saying that at all, I'm just saying it's totally reasonable that driving under the influence is illegal and can come with jail time. That's common sense.

[DrScholl]

You need to bite that bullet to retain a logical position.

It's a matter of opinion if drunk driving should be illegal or not, so let's just leave it at agree to disagree.

[DrScholl]

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 occurring?

Statistics don't have anything to with it, you don't need numbers to tell you that impaired driving should be illegal. It's not the same thing as changing the station on the radio.

[DrScholl]

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.

[DrScholl]

there is no such 'right'.  thankfully I understand what you are trying to say.  unfortunately you have singled out only one of the many forms of impairment and deemed it worthy of draconian punishment.

And there is no right to drive drunk. Drunk driving laws are to protect other people, not restrict people of rights that aren't at all enshrined in the constitution. If a drunk driver injures or kills someone, they should get a jail sentence. If not, they should get a fine and have their license revoked.

Technically, no one really has a right not to be robbed, assaulted or murdered, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws against that. Some may hate those laws as restricting freedom, but they do make sense. Sorry.

[DrScholl]

I thought of something better to say, I went over the top and shouldn't have. It's just aggravating to me that some people don't see that drunk driving is not safe.