Driving Under the Influence - A Complex Moral and Legal Issue - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15163297
Unthinking Majority wrote:Driving drunk is not a human right, just like driving above the speed limit or running red lights is not a right, even if nobody is hurt. Driving a car is a regulated activity for which you have no inalienable human right to partake in, nor in the manner of your choosing. What a stupid thing to say.

I disagree, in one sense.
It should be a right, unless that right is taken away for a valid reason (which could include not following reasonable rules).

Once you say driving is not a right, then it is going to set a slippery slope for all sorts of other things.
(I already read in other threads people say "Well, you need a license to drive, so why can't we require a license for this other thing too?")

It's similar to freedom. Freedom is a right, unless you did something to go to prison.

I might not be disagreeing with you, but just thought it was important to point out.
#15163298
Puffer Fish wrote:
I disagree, in one sense.
It should be a right, unless that right is taken away for a valid reason (which could include not following reasonable rules).

Once you say driving is not a right, then it is going to set a slippery slope for all sorts of other things.
(I already read in other threads people say "Well, you need a license to drive, so why can't we require a license for this other thing too?")

It's similar to freedom. Freedom is a right, unless you did something to go to prison.

I might not be disagreeing with you, but just thought it was important to point out.



Driving is a privilege, not a right. Ask any judge...
#15163305
Breaking the law is not a "right". People make laws to protect people from harm.

Driving drunk is not a right. To imply that is just idiocy and hyperbole.

Drinking isn't even a right, as you need to be legal drinking age, and you cannot drink everywhere, either.
#15163311
Puffer Fish wrote:I disagree, in one sense.
It should be a right, unless that right is taken away for a valid reason (which could include not following reasonable rules).

Once you say driving is not a right, then it is going to set a slippery slope for all sorts of other things.
(I already read in other threads people say "Well, you need a license to drive, so why can't we require a license for this other thing too?")

It's similar to freedom. Freedom is a right, unless you did something to go to prison.

I might not be disagreeing with you, but just thought it was important to point out.

Well I'm just pointing out that it's not a right to drive. You need a license to drive, and to follow the rules of the road. No drunk driving is a good rule.
#15163326
Godstud wrote:Breaking the law is not a "right". People make laws to protect people from harm.

That's not a good argument.

Are you familiar with the concept of an equivocation fallacy? The sense in which you were using the word "right" would make your statement irrelevant to the issue here.

I don't like arguments that use words with ambiguous meanings that seem to imply something.
#15163327
Puffer Fish wrote:.

I don't like arguments that use words with ambiguous meanings that seem to imply something.



It's a privilege. That is what grownups call a fact.

"In 1999, the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, in the case of Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, ruled that there simply is no "fundamental right to drive.

“Typically, if a right is going to be limited, restricted or revoked, there must be 'due process' – the right to a hearing – and there must be a good basis for the revocation or restriction,” Lykins said. “The privilege to drive is a benefit that is extended based upon certain requirements being satisfied.”

In order to legally drive, the state requires people to be of age and have a valid operator’s permit.

To restrict or revoke a privilege sometimes requires some form of due process, but this is not as strictly required."

https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2011/11/law_talk_who_says_driving_is_a.html
#15163490
Unthinking Majority wrote:What sympathy could one have for somebody who makes decisions that endanger the lives of others?

The argument is the degree to which the actually endanger the lives of others.

Obviously there is some trade-off in being super strict with the standards of enforcement.

I don't think we're talking about people who are obviously totally drunk and obviously in a state of being completely unfit to drive.
#15163500
Puffer Fish wrote:The argument is the degree to which the actually endanger the lives of others.

Obviously there is some trade-off in being super strict with the standards of enforcement.

I don't think we're talking about people who are obviously totally drunk and obviously in a state of being completely unfit to drive.


There's legal limits to which they indicate someone is unfit to drive, where alcohol can impair reaction and senses, they call it "legally intoxicated". You can still drive in most countries with some amount of alcohol in your bloodstream. Usually the limit is 0.8%, which is about 4-5 drinks/beers, which is a lot. If don't get in an accident and you're 0.5 to less than 0.8 that's usually a minor slap on the wrist, meaning something like a fine and short license suspension (a few days or months depending on jurisdiction), it's usually a traffic offense not a criminal offense.

Even if you're piss drunk but didn't get in an accident on a first offense it's a fine and short suspended license. If you pay like $800 and lose your license for 3-6 months that's not that big of a deal considering you were smashed and could have killed somebody. It's not like you lose your license forever and go to jail. They don't treat a drunk guy smashing into a car or a fence the same as just a drunk guy they stop.
#15163501
Here in Australia drug addicts who endanger the lives of others are given special (vulnerable persons) status and get preferential/lenient treatment when times come for prosecution. This included those driving under the influence, or stabbing you in the gut repeatedly for your wallet, be it under the influence of alcohol or meth. An addict stabbed a cop in the spine couple years back for funsies and only got 2 years.

When the punishment-rehabilitation pendulum swings to one extreme and stays there...it is time for Batman or something.
#15163505
Igor Antunov wrote:Here in Australia drug addicts who endanger the lives of others are given special (vulnerable persons) status and get preferential/lenient treatment when times come for prosecution. This included those driving under the influence, or stabbing you in the gut repeatedly for your wallet, be it under the influence of alcohol or meth. An addict stabbed a cop in the spine couple years back for funsies and only got 2 years.

When the punishment-rehabilitation pendulum swings to one extreme and stays there...it is time for Batman or something.

...or Comrade Stalin. :)
#15165736
Igor Antunov wrote:Here in Australia drug addicts who endanger the lives of others are given special (vulnerable persons) status and get preferential/lenient treatment when times come for prosecution. This included those driving under the influence, or stabbing you in the gut repeatedly for your wallet, be it under the influence of alcohol or meth. An addict stabbed a cop in the spine couple years back for funsies and only got 2 years.

That's interesting. I have mixed feelings about that.

I can see addiction engendering sympathy, but addiction does not lessen moral responsibility for serious harms done to others.
It was their fault they got addicted in the first place and did not attempt to stop, seek help, etc.

Unless we view this according to my "insurance policy" type of idea, where drug addiction is punished separately, by itself, but it also serves as an insurance policy to reduce the amount of your punishment if you do harm somebody under the influence of drugs.

In many parts of the US with punitive views, they'd just view it as an excuse to give the offender double the punishment - (1) doing drugs and (2) for committing harm, with no discounts in level of punishment or sympathy.

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]

The rapes by Hamas, real or imagained are irreleva[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia coul[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]