The State Of Police

[MSimon]

*

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/06/how-b ... they-dont/

*

[Jccarlton]

*

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/06/how-b ... they-dont/

*

Simplest way to beat a breathalyzer; don't drink and operate a motor vehicle. Driving is dangerous enough sober. It's the one thing you do every day that can easily get you and other people killed. Driving while impaired is the height of irresponsibility. If you read the comments, most of the people admitted that they failed other tests before the breathalyzer. Drink at home, fine. Drink, and then drive and you will eventually hve consequences you really don't want to die with.

[Diogenes]

*

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/06/how-b ... they-dont/

*

Simplest way to beat a breathalyzer; don't drink and operate a motor vehicle. Driving is dangerous enough sober. It's the one thing you do every day that can easily get you and other people killed. Driving while impaired is the height of irresponsibility. If you read the comments, most of the people admitted that they failed other tests before the breathalyzer. Drink at home, fine. Drink, and then drive and you will eventually hve consequences you really don't want to die with.

The Libertarians will argue that until you actually INJURE someone, you are doing no harm.

[KitemanSA]

*

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/06/how-b ... they-dont/

*

Simplest way to beat a breathalyzer; don't drink and operate a motor vehicle. Driving is dangerous enough sober. It's the one thing you do every day that can easily get you and other people killed. Driving while impaired is the height of irresponsibility. If you read the comments, most of the people admitted that they failed other tests before the breathalyzer. Drink at home, fine. Drink, and then drive and you will eventually hve consequences you really don't want to die with.

The Libertarians will argue that until you actually INJURE someone, you are doing no harm.

[hanelyp]

The Libertarians will argue that until you actually INJURE someone, you are doing no harm.

Maybe the lunatic fringe. I'd say that that a realistic risk of substantial injury is enough to justify regulation. In the absence of benefit, enough to justify prohibition of some behaviors.

[KitemanSA]

The Libertarians will argue that until you actually INJURE someone, you are doing no harm.

Maybe the lunatic fringe. I'd say that that a realistic risk of substantial injury is enough to justify regulation. In the absence of benefit, enough to justify prohibition of some behaviors.

There are many levels of "harm" and many abilities to withstand a specified blood alcohol level. Saying someone is "DUI" at 0.8% BAL is arbitrary. And someone who is 30hrs without sleep can be as dangerous to other drivers as a 0.8% BAL. It is the result that is real. Someone swerving and driving eratically from whatever cause is adversely impacting the other drivers and should be appropriately cited.

[IntLibber]

*

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/06/how-b ... they-dont/

*

Simplest way to beat a breathalyzer; don't drink and operate a motor vehicle. Driving is dangerous enough sober. It's the one thing you do every day that can easily get you and other people killed. Driving while impaired is the height of irresponsibility. If you read the comments, most of the people admitted that they failed other tests before the breathalyzer. Drink at home, fine. Drink, and then drive and you will eventually hve consequences you really don't want to die with.

The Libertarians will argue that until you actually INJURE someone, you are doing no harm.

THIS Libertarian tells you that the moment you become inhibited, you have willingly surrendered the ability to make rational judgements. If you haven't restrained yourself by giving someone else your car keys, then you accept personal responsibility for anything and everything that you, as an inhibited person, may do out of your control, as if you intentionally let a psycho loose on society. I don't think drunks who drink, drive, and kill someone should be allowed to plea negligent homicide.

And I still believe in legalizing most drugs, regulating and taxing their manufacture and distribution.