Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
You don't get all of those options champ. Way to be up on what you're arguing for though.
And no it's not the same situation if you blow over .08. In that situation you have due process rights, it's only when you don't commit a criminal offense that you have no rights whatsoever. Makes sense huh? No criminal offense = no rights. Criminal offense = Charter protections.
The biggest BS part of this whole thing is no politician can actually raise the issue out of fear of the neo-prohibitionists at MADD going on a campaign to label them as pro drunk driving.
|
And so it should be that no one should be arguing this. It has shown to be a successful deterrent to drunk driving lowering death, and therefore it should be implemented.
But instead people are making arguments and forgetting to bring in probability into there scenarios. sure it could prevent deaths but there is a 0.001% chance the machine is out of calibration and it cost me some more. This is against my rights. If it saves lives and the odd person is 'fined' i'm fine with that. All systems are flawed, innocent people go to the courts and get convicted, how in this scenario is going to court going to get you out of the fine. How much are you willing to pay to fight a fine like that?
The best example I can thing of for this is if you get a speeding ticket in Montana (land of better freedoms I'm told earlier) you have to pay the ticket right away. Is that the same attack on freedoms.