Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
And this is how we get to the probable cause. They must need a probable cause - erratic driving, warning telephone call, anything to suggest that a driver could be under influence. Then, it's a justified check of a suspect due to his/her actions clearly endangering public safety.
|
So you’re ok with someone driving drunk if they can manage the vehicle? If they aren’t doing anything suspicious, it’s all good? Not everyone who drives drunk is swerving around or have someone phone them in, so they should be free to continue their drive home until they screw up, yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
That's rather a broad discussion. I firmly believe in the "live and let live" principle of societal governance. You are visibly on the "government knows better" side of things.
|
Not at all. I’m on the side that believes this is a very minor loss of personal freedom for what amounts to a greater overall benefit to society. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing, Orwell vs Lawless utopia. It’s ok to actually discuss an issue with nuance and talk about this issue for what it is (you might have to take a breathalyser when you’re driving) than blow it into some grand loss of democracy.