TheOcho wrote:I'm not trying to discredit scientific evidence or statistics. The argument boils down to punishing someone for engaging in an activity that increases ones propensity to commit a crime. In this situation it is consuming alcohol past a point predetermined by the state and operating a vehicle. The argument rests on the belief that it is not just for government to punish people for crimes they may or may not commit.
No, it is about deterring activities that increase the likelihood of death, serious injury and property damage to those involved or not. Maybe we shouldn't have traffic laws at all? I mean, what's inherently wrong with driving on the left side of the road, or stopping on green and going on red? If people get into an accident we can punish them then, meanwhile all the responsible left-side-drivers can go on as they please.
TheOcho wrote:This situation involves alcohol, obviously. However, we can imagine that at some point in the future the situation involves caffeine, strength, or alertness. If it was shown that caffeine, lack of strength, or being fatigued decreased an individuals ability to drive a car and excessive caffeine use, weakness, or fatigue greatly reduced our ability to drive a car, would we criminalize all these behaviors when coupled with driving, too? Caffeine, strength, and fatigue are random variables with no real connection to the real world. They are just used for purpose of discussion.
If it was shown that driving while caffeinated, weak or fatigued was as dangerous as driving while intoxicated, then those things too should be illegal. They aren't though, in the case of caffeine or weakness, and tiredness is sort of hard to measure and so probably has enforceability problems.
TheOcho wrote:At what point would the line be drawn? It's a philosophical and constitutional (unless there is an original intent scholar on here who can eliminate this entirely, I suppose) argument. Would we accept tests to determine if we were strong enough, alert enough, or had not consumed too much caffeine? Maybe that's a non-issue for some of you.
I don't even know what you're arguing here.