betasteve wrote:TheOcho wrote:
The entire point is that someone who voluntarily drinks and drives, has yet to violate a just law. I understand that driving under the influence is illegal. That is not a new concept.
Now you are being circular. Whether the law is just is essentially the argument we are making. You can't assume the conclusion to make your point.TheOcho wrote:If you voluntarily drink and drive, yet violate no traffic laws but hit a check-point. You will, in theory, be charged with the crime of having an unacceptable blood alcohol content. You have committed no other crime. The police have no way of knowing if you have or have not violated any other traffic laws (in theory). Thus, you are being charged solely for the content of your blood. Something that I feel is arbitrary. We don't always have the luxury of knowing our BAC at any given moment.
It's not arbitrary—they have an exact standard of what your BAC is for you to violate the law. Because you don't have access to your BAC minute by minute does not make the level arbitrary—in fact you need to look up that word in the dictionary, because you are using it completely wrong. And you aren't being charged "solely for the content of your blood." You are being charged for intentionally acting (drinking) to ingest alcohol, which knowingly carries side effects, and then aware or should have been aware that such side effects diminish the ability to operate a motor vehicle, you intentionally operate a motor vehicle.