Abolish Drunk Driving Laws

Monday, October 11th, 2010

I make the case for doing so in this week’s crime column.

I promise to share any resulting hate mail.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

65 Responses to “Abolish Drunk Driving Laws”

  1. #1 |  SJE | 

    I agree that the focus should be on impairment, rather than BAC, using a cell phone, etc. Too often are their cases where the driver was rooting around looking for a dropped object, or driving with fogged up windows, and all the cops care about was “was the person over 0.08.”

    OTOH, do you want to trust the cops with making subjective judgements, and the potential for abuse that goes with it? If I respect authoratah, can I drive with BAC 1.0, while those who don’t respect authoratah are suddenly DUI at 0.2. At least a BAC provides an objecive number that has been shown to correlate with risk.

  2. #2 |  Adam | 

    How bizarre that there would be a rule against driving with 0.08 blood alcohol content, but none against driving while impaired. Here in Canada, our Criminal Code does both:

    253. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,

    (a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or

    (b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.

  3. #3 |  James J.B. | 

    Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment.

    Wow. The nannies have made so many gains in the thought processes (of even one of our guys…) Yes, it will all be better when we are nailing the “distracted” drivers too.

    1. No matter how much I talk on my phone or to my passenger – I am not physically impaired.

    2. All driving to some degree is distracted. No one can focus on the road in front of them and never lapse in attention.

    3. This statement will justify cell phone = talking children = DUI. Trust me, the government will not eliminate DUI, instead they will treat everyone else as harsh as DUIs.

    4. The cell phone “studies” are skewed by people that want laws against cells in cars. I do not believe that a cell phone, car radio, talking passengers, etc. are evils that the state must stop.

  4. #4 |  SJE | 

    Perhaps we need to focus FIRST on getting a better breed of cops and then we can simplify the laws.

  5. #5 |  Matt D | 

    I think you make some good points here, but overall I found it a bit weak. Not sure you really justified your conclusion and as #1 points out, I think you ducked the issue of enforcement.

    One of the ways that drunk driving is unique is that it’s a continuous and testable condition. Fiddling with your radio may be an impairment, but it’s a temporary one, impossible to predict, and most likely impossible to prove after the fact. Being drunk, on the other hand, is a continuous impairment, quite easy to predict, and actually testable. I’m not crazy about how we deal with drunk driving currently but I also don’t think it’s comparable to the other forms of impairment that you cite, and consequently probably shouldn’t be addressed in the same way.

  6. #6 |  asscore | 

    As a citizen of Wisconsin I LOVE this article. We have some of the more reasonable cops when it comes to drunk driving.

    From 1-3 in the morning all of the cops disappear and let everyone get home.
    In the small towns anyways…

  7. #7 |  Nate | 

    But how will they arrest us when Google is driving?
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2370518,00.asp

  8. #8 |  Is The Best Way to Get Rid of Drunk Drivers Getting Rid of Drunk Driving Laws? – Louisville Juice | 

    [...] will, no doubt, get mail. (He says on blog, “I promise to share any resulting hate mail.”) But he’s right to raise the [...]

  9. #9 |  Ben | 

    Don’t dash cams take care of the “subjective judgment” problem, though? If you’re weaving, blowing through stop signs or drifting between lanes, the cop will have video of it.

  10. #10 |  Tim | 

    It might be possible to make a formal test of things like reaction time and judgment in a small, tamper-proof, hand-held device; sort of like a mini-driving test. I think that’d be an improvement. Of course the device may not be perfect, but there are unanswered questions about breathalyzers even today.

    As for nannyism, let’s not forget the line about where to stop swinging one’s fist. Reckless driving will eventually almost certainly harm others. Or do you think that hypothetical private highway owners in a perfect market would not take any “nanny”-like precautions in order to maximize overall use of their property?

  11. #11 |  Aaron | 

    How bizarre that there would be a rule against driving with 0.08 blood alcohol content, but none against driving while impaired. Here in Canada, our Criminal Code does both:

    In the U.S. it varies state-by-state, like most law.

  12. #12 |  Radley Balko | 

    Being drunk, on the other hand, is a continuous impairment, quite easy to predict, and actually testable.

    Sleep deprivation? Kids in the backseat? Prescription medication?

    These are all impairments that are continuous and easy to predict. I don’t know how testable they are, but BAC doesn’t accurately measure degree of impairment, only how much alcohol is in the blood.

    As for enforcement, most states already have clear definitions of reckless driving (25+ mph over the speed limit, etc.) And if you want to use BAC after a reckless driving stop to add to the penalty, that’s fine (though it should be higher than .08). My problem is with making DWI a crime in and of itself. A guy pulled over for going 5 mph over who blows .081 gets a DWI that severely disrupts his life. Meanwhile, a guy going 5 mph over who blows .00 but hasn’t slept in 36 hours gets a warning for speeding. The latter is a much bigger threat.

  13. #13 |  Bill | 

    I don’t have a problem with the argument, but would rather fight other battles.

  14. #14 |  Marty | 

    #9 | Ben |

    ‘Don’t dash cams take care of the “subjective judgment” problem, though? If you’re weaving, blowing through stop signs or drifting between lanes, the cop will have video of it.’

    if the camera helps the accused, the footage is not there due to the camera being ‘out of service’, etc.

  15. #15 |  Jon Gray | 

    @Ben

    My experience as a prosecutor was that the dash board cam only came on when the sirens were one. Not to say that makes sense and couldn’t be fixed as a policy quite easily, but just giving you what I’ve seen.

  16. #16 |  Dave | 

    From the linked article “Officers can’t hold down a suspect and force them to breath into a tube, she noted, but they can forcefully take blood — a practice that’s been upheld by Idaho’s Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.” -Wow

  17. #17 |  Sean L. | 

    “… Kids in the backseat? …?

    These are all impairments that are continuous and easy to predict.”

    Two words:
    Duct. Tape.

    Kidding aside, at first I was worried about the ‘arbitrary’ aspect of this view, but then, any cop RIGHT NOW can pull you over and just ‘say’ you were going 70 in a 45, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. I don’t see how Radley’s proposal would change anything in that arena.

  18. #18 |  KBCraig | 

    @Adam: generally, there are enforceable laws against driving while impaired, no matter what the substance is. Proving it is more difficult, but then the burden of proof should always be a high hurdle for the prosecution to cross.

    Police even can, and do, get convictions for DUI/DWI when the BAC is below .08, so long as they can demonstrate that the driver was actually impaired.

  19. #19 |  Ben | 

    Marty/Jon Gray,
    Simple fix to that one. There is a button the cop’s steering wheel or dash to turn on the camera whenever they need to. If there’s no video or the system “malfunctioned”, then they need some other form or evidence, or no conviction (or arraignment to begin with)

  20. #20 |  KBCraig | 

    Wow. I should have read the article before replying to Adam.

    I don’t know what Texas Acevedo lives in, but in this Texas I know police who have gotten DWI convictions for people below .08. That number is merely the presumptive level of intoxication; driving while at or above that BAC is prime facie evidence of DWI. It is not the only standard accepted in court, though.

  21. #21 |  André | 

    Good points. I feel that habitual cell phone users could be easier to “re-educate” than alcoholics…

  22. #22 |  Mattocracy | 

    The most convincing argument against road blocks is focusing police resources on one location instead of spreadig them out cover more road traffic where obvious drunk drivers could be missed. Ignoring that obvious strategy really implies that police activity is more about raising revenues via citiation rather than protecting or serving.

    I can’t speak for everyone, but I always have a pretty good idea where the cops set up road blocks where I live. I usually take backroads and residential streets to get home after a late night. It’s not because I drive drunk but to simply avoid the hasslement and tickets for minor infractions.

  23. #23 |  Don Doumakes | 

    The article asks a narrow question, and gives a good answer to it. How should police recognize drunk-or-otherwise-impaired drivers and set about getting them off the street? Watch their driving. Makes sense.

    After arrest, though, and after conviction, the drunk reckless driver ought to be treated differently from the sober, just-an-asshole reckless driver. If we’re serious about public safety, the sensible approach to the drunk is to have the court order an evaluation to see if he’s alcoholic, and if so, order court-supervised therapy. Typically that’s in- or outpatient rehab followed by a lifetime of regular AA meetings, and jail time if you don’t comply. Drunks who are ordered into therapy are known to do about as well as drunks who choose it for themselves, contradicting the myth that you have to WANT to get help. The approach makes them somewhat less likely to reoffend. That’s important, because alcoholics are notoriously impervious to threats of severe punishment.

  24. #24 |  hattio | 

    Ben suggests;

    “Simple fix to that one. There is a button the cop’s steering wheel or dash to turn on the camera whenever they need to. If there’s no video or the system “malfunctioned”, then they need some other form or evidence, or no conviction (or arraignment to begin with)”

    Except the police officer will not have a reason to punch the button until AFTER they see suspicious activity, swerving etc. You still have to deal with those cases where the driver only does ONE suspicious movement, one swerve, one roll-through on a stop sign, etc. Now, you can say that if they only do one thing, they should automatically be let go, and I’d be fine with that. But, I don’t think you’re going to get a majority of voters, or a majority of legislators, to go along with you.

  25. #25 |  Cynical in CA | 

    No hate mail from me. There are already reckless driving laws that cover the situation quite nicely, IMHO.

    But hate mail you will get. Man oh man, nothing sets people off like drunk driving.

  26. #26 |  delta | 

    Generally agree with almost all of that. Definitely in favor of reducing belligerent criminalizations and cop money-making scams that hurt real people.

    But also concerned about increasing cop subjectivity for impairment charges. I’d like to see Radley’s preferred solution to that.

  27. #27 |  PW | 

    “Bill Lewis, head of the Texas chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, agreed. “I don’t see how it would hurt,” he told the paper.”

    So Mothers Against Drunk Driving is run by a dude named Bill. Am I missing something, or do they really not see what that portends about their organization?

  28. #28 |  bobzbob | 

    ” In fact, drivers with BACs between 0.01 and 0.03 were involved in more fatal accidents than drivers with BACs between 0.08 and 0.10.”

    Excellent example of how to lie with statistics: There are obviously many more drivers with low BAC’s on the road, without statistics per mile driven these numbers are clearly meaningless. But they serve your argument so your moral obligations are obviated. Actual data on accident RATES at these levels would show your argument to be the hogwash you know it is.

    Next meaningless statistics: Drivers with 0.0BAC are involved in more accidents than drivers with 0.4BAC, so sober driving should be outlawed!

  29. #29 |  delta | 

    #28: Exactly correct, thanks for writing that (so I didn’t have to).

  30. #30 |  Jeff | 

    I really don’t why you’re calling the idea “Abolish”ing drunk driving laws, when what you’re really doing is calling for changes in how police look for drunk/impaired drivers. Seems like unnecessarily baiting.

  31. #31 |  qwints | 

    DWAI already exists in a number of states – including New York.

  32. #32 |  Radley Balko | 

    Excellent example of how to lie with statistics: There are obviously many more drivers with low BAC’s on the road, without statistics per mile driven these numbers are clearly meaningless.

    You missed the point. Which is that there’s no evidence that .08 causes significant impairment. The mere fact that someone’s BAC is .08 doesn’t mean that was why they were in an accident. But the government counts it as such, anyway. And it could do the same for .03. And the data would be just as (in)significant.

  33. #33 |  Radley Balko | 

    I really don’t why you’re calling the idea “Abolish”ing drunk driving laws, when what you’re really doing is calling for changes in how police look for drunk/impaired drivers. Seems like unnecessarily baiting.

    But I am calling for the abolition of drunk driving laws. I’m saying being over an arbitrary BAC limit while driving shouldn’t be a crime in and of itself. The focus on alcohol instead of poor driving does nothing to improve highway safety and leads to pointless violations of our civil liberties.

  34. #34 |  Cynical in CA | 

    Sober Asian women (sober Asians in general) start off with an equivalent BAC of 0.15%.

    Don’t believe me? Come out to Cali sometime and see for yourself.

    Excellent argument about the arbitrary nature of drunk-driving laws.

  35. #35 |  DaveG | 

    Sober Asians are a menace. Despite our killing millions in Japan and Korea, they just keep coming. More dangerous than Al-Qaeda, watch out for that Rincoln Continental, no one is safe

  36. #36 |  kriznol | 

    @Cynical in CA: Racist much?

  37. #37 |  croaker | 

    @14 Simple solution to that: No tape, not guilty. End of line.

  38. #38 |  croaker | 

    @17 Crap like that is why people are installing their own recording devices in cars, though smart phones make this a less appealing option.

  39. #39 |  supercat | 

    If I had my druthers, the rules about intoxicated driving would be changed as follows:

    -1- Cops would have to demonstrate that something about the defendant’s conduct gave the cop reason to believe his ability to control his vehicle safely was impaired, before pulling over the vehicle. It would be a simple technical matter to design a video system to keep a rolling 30-second buffer until the cop hits a “keep” button, so it should be possible for cops to have video that backs them up.

    -2- Jurors should be instructed to determine for themselves whether they regard the defendant’s actions before and after the pull-over to be indicative of impairment.

    -3- If a cop claims the action that justified the pull-over was not caught on video for some reason, jurors should be instructed to be skeptical. The defense should be allowed to introduce evidence from other cases in an effort to impeach the cop’s credibility.

    -4- While it would not be necessary that a cop actually see the vehicle in motion while the defendant was operating it, the prosecutor would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did in fact put the vehicle in motion on a public right of way, or would have done so had the cop not intervened. If a defendant claims that he simply turned on the engine to keep warm while sleeping off his hangover, the jury should determine whether such claim is credible.

    -5- Alcohol consumption between the time an accident occurs and the time it is resolved would be expressly forbidden; jurors would be instructed to presume that someone who was observed to be intoxicated after an accident was intoxicated at the time thereof.

  40. #40 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    Either abolsih the laws or change them to make the
    cases fair.
    30 years of MADD tweaking the laws ended up with these
    “no-drop” policies even when the cases were weak as hell.
    You don’t even have to be drunk or driving anymore
    to get a conviction.

  41. #41 |  frank n | 

    oh great introduce MORE subjectivity into law enforcement…yeah that’s brilliant…

  42. #42 |  perlhaqr | 

    @kriznol: No, just observant.

    Why is it only “racist” when someone points out negative traits that group by culture? Would you still have squawked if he had said “asian women are good at math”?

  43. #43 |  Zeke Hyle | 

    #36: My girlfriend, a half-Vietnamese daughter of an immigrant, uses (among others) the phrase “DWO”, or “Driving while Oriental” all the fucking time, and has such gems as “The Asians visit a car dealer who sells them Hyundais specially equipped without a turn signal.” Is she being racist? Is that a crucifiable offense?

  44. #44 |  Gerald A | 

    Be careful what you wish for Radley.

    Alot of cops I’ve seen can’t drive for shit, and they’ll decide? Or someone will think your idea is the greatest, and to take out the subjective, required everyone to have a blackbox in the car in the next few years.

  45. #45 |  BoogaFrito | 

    Fiddling with your radio may be an impairment, but it’s a temporary one, impossible to predict, and most likely impossible to prove after the fact.

    But Radley is not arguing in favor of making radio-fiddling illegal. He is suggesting that only the results of impairment (the actual evidence of which would be swerving, excessive speed, etc.) be targeted by law enforcement enforcing reckless driving laws. The underlying cause would be irrelevant.

  46. #46 |  MPH | 

    The problem I have with DWI laws, and the rest of you should as well, is this: they presume that because someone else did something bad while DWI, you MUST be about to do something bad because you’re DWI, and must be prevented from doing so.

    That’s a dangerous precedent to set. For instance, most spousal abuse incidents occur when the abuser is drunk. So now we’ll need random house searches to make sure you’re not drunk in your home, and if you are, we have to assume that you’re about to beat your spouse, and arrest you.

    Or, some guy raped someone with his penis. You’ve got a penis, so we have to arrest you before you commit rape.

    Both of these hypothetical situations use the same flawed logic as in drunk driving laws: someone else did XXXXX because they had YYYYY; you have YYYYY, so you must be stopped before you do XXXXX.

    Even if you accept that XXXXX was CAUSED by YYYYY for some previous case, that doesn’t make it inevitable in all cases where YYYYY is present. But the law presumes that YYYYY inevitably causes XXXXX in ALL cases where YYYYY is present, which is clearly false.

  47. #47 |  Brian | 

    Oh the Irony of a guy name Lawrence Taylor being a DWI Lawyer.

  48. #48 |  qwints | 

    @43, yes it is racist. Although we see people making racist comments about their own race as more acceptable, it’s still racist. There are lots of asians who are racists.

  49. #49 |  Jeff | 

    But I am calling for the abolition of drunk driving laws. I’m saying being over an arbitrary BAC limit while driving shouldn’t be a crime in and of itself. The focus on alcohol instead of poor driving does nothing to improve highway safety and leads to pointless violations of our civil liberties.

    Yes, you’re saying that they shouldn’t focus on BAC, because having that BAC doesn’t mean you are drunk. -But-, you’re obviously still calling for police to look for obvious signs of impairment, aka actually being drunk regardless of BAC.

  50. #50 |  SamK | 

    Eh, drugs do specific things.

    One of the things alcohol does is remove inhibitions, slow down reaction speed, and impair your ability to steer (depth perception etc).

    I’m ok with there being a threshold alcohol level that establishes a legal liability. I’m not ok with anything else about alcohol and DUI law.

    The fact that DUI law is ridiculously out of control does not change the fact that extremely drunk people drive and that they should be reprimanded for it.

    There’s a significant problem in the US where the primary social activity outside your home involves alcohol consumption but there is no system in place that gets people home without risk or lets them sober up in place. This is why drunken driving is the problem that it is. Some of the other countries I’ve been in had rooms to rent nearby to sleep it off or well established public transportation. Some US cities have very well organized taxi services…most have nothing.

    Let me repeat that alcohol impairs and you’re liable for operating machinery impaired. Let me also repeat that 0.08 is a ridiculous level to assume impairment. nevermind, I’ll eat the negative karma.

  51. #51 |  SamK | 

    Point being you can easily test and establish a 96th percentile “impairment” level for the “average” driver. It’s pretty high as I recall, like 1.4 BAC or something (yes, pulled the value out of my anal extraction table).

  52. #52 |  Cynical in CA | 

    #36 | kriznol — “Cynical in CA: Racist much?”

    The truth happens to be a valid defense, you ignorant fuck.

  53. #53 |  Cynical in CA | 

    #43 | Zeke Hyle — “My girlfriend, a half-Vietnamese daughter of an immigrant, uses (among others) the phrase “DWO””

    Exactly. We share the same sense of humor, I say “DWA.”

    What’s even more amazing is watching Asians cross a street or parking lot. Not one of them ever looks up or both ways. Ever. Just put their heads down and start crossing the street regardless of oncoming traffic. Pure Zen.

    As for me being racist, you’ll just have to ask my two spic neighbors on either side of me, the gooks who live on my block, the ragheads in the neighborhood too, oh wait, don’t forget those junglebunnies — because I live in the most ethnically-diverse city of its size in America. Go ahead and ask the gook and spic friends of my kids while you’re at it too, and the ones who visit my house regularly for card and dice games with my wife and myself.

    Man, people are so fucking ignorant.

  54. #54 |  MPH | 

    As an anecdotal example of how the same levels of BAC have different effects on different people (as mentioned previously), I offer the following.

    My father (a USA citizen) worked for a company that made conveyor systems. He was in their installation and maintenance department. One of the places he went to perform maintenance was a brewery in Canada that made beer for sale in Canada (where the alcohol content limits may be different than in the USA). This particular brewery allowed each employee to have 6 beers, right off the line, at each break, for a total of 18 beers per shift. My father said he was amazed that at the end of the day, he could talk to people who he had seen drink 18 beers in less than 5 hours, watch them walk, operate machinery, and they did not appear to be impaired. At the end of their shift, they drove home. Some had been doing this for over 35 years.

    Of course, what we really need to know is what was these people’s accident rate for the drive home.

    Here in the USA, 18 beers would be about 13 ounces of alcohol, or the equivalent of drinking a quart of 80 proof liquor in the same amount of time (note: a quart – not a “fifth”, or the usual 750 mL bottle liquor, but about 1 L, or almost 1/3 more than a “fifth”). In Canada, where they might not have the 6% alcohol content limit for beer, it could be even higher.

    But I know that if I drank 13 ounces of alcohol in 5 hours like this brewery’s workers do, I’d be unable to talk coherently, and would have trouble crawling on my hands and knees. I know this because the drunkest I’ve ever been I was in this condition, and I had drank quite a bit less than 13 ounces of alcohol – I guess I just need more practice.

    I agree with Radley. Eliminate the penalty for DWI. Just go for the penalty for violating the traffic regulations. Dash cams in police cars will provide the needed proof, and if it was “malfunctioning” and has no such proof, acquittals will encourage both the officer and his department to make sure that “malfunctions” are rare.

    To be honest, if you are yielding when the traffic regulations say you’re supposed to (which is the most important part of driving), staying within the speed limit, using your turn signals, and obeying all the other rules that specify driving behavior, I don’t care if you’re driving while dead. But if you’re weaving in and out of lane, or otherwise being a menace from behind the wheel, I want you off the road, no matter how sober you are.

  55. #55 |  KristenS | 

    One of my fondest wishes is to have the head of MADD arrested for DUI. Fuuuuuck, that would make me so happy!

  56. #56 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    “If the offense were reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated swerving over the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no need for a cop to jam a needle in your arm alongside a busy highway.”

    That was a thought provoking article, Radley. I basically agree, with some reservations.

    The subject of alcohol intoxication producing “continuous impairment” has already come up. You answered this objection by noting that driving while sleep deprived, under the influence of prescription meds, or with kids in the car might also cause continuous impairment. You are correct, at least on the sleep deprivation and prescription meds examples. You also added, “and if you want to use BAC after a reckless driving stop to add to the penalty, that’s fine.” That may be necessary, but here is my primary concern: After an officer determines that a subject is “impaired,” for whatever reason, will the officer have the right to prohibit that person from driving. Because, if the officer has to let an impaired person get right back in the car after issuing the reckless driving citation, that would be counterproductive. Obviously, allowing a semi-ambulatory drunk with piss stains on his jeans to continue driving may further endanger public safety.

    Other than that concern, I think you make a strong case for reviewing DUI laws.

  57. #57 |  Stephen Smith | 

    If libertarians spent half as much time attacking mandates and subsidies for cars/roads/suburban sprawl as they do defending the rights of people to drive drunk, well, the world would be a hell of a lot better of a place.

    I’m not saying that .08 laws are airtight, but really, don’t you have anything better to talk about?

  58. #58 |  Radley Balko | 

    I’m not saying that .08 laws are airtight, but really, don’t you have anything better to talk about?

    I write a crime/criminal justice column every week. I believe this is the first one I’ve written in two years that addresses drunk driving laws.

    So yes. I do have other things to talk about. And yes, I do in fact talk about other things. Nearly always.

    I actually think you make a good point, and there’s a niche for a libertarian to explore the relationship between transportation/zoning policy and sprawl, walkable communities, obesity, and a host of other issues.

    But you might consider a less assholish way of plugging your particular pet issue.

  59. #59 |  Cynical in CA | 

    And that niche is called … Jim Kunstler, the man who specializes in exhibiting sadistic tendencies toward expired equine. What a one-trick pony he is.

  60. #60 |  white_guy | 

    Black people are good at basketball.

    Mexicans make good farm workers.

    White guys are good shots with a hunting rifle.

    Arabs make good taxi drivers.

    If not racist, making generalities (good or bad) about whole groups of people based on their ethnicity certainly isn’t a libertarian/individualist thing to do.

  61. #61 |  RufusMoon | 

    Decriminalizing DUI laws is a good idea, huh? How about we protect the right to protest soldier funerals too: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/10/08/for-free-speech-to-matter-it-must-protect-the-worst-of-the-worst/

    Sarcasm, it’s a wonderful thing…

  62. #62 |  Cynical in CA | 

    #60 | white_guy — “If not racist, making generalities (good or bad) about whole groups of people based on their ethnicity certainly isn’t a libertarian/individualist thing to do.”

    You forgot: “in my opinion.”

    That statement is a bald assertion, and a false one at that.

  63. #63 |  white_guy | 

    Cynical in CA: So you’re saying that categorizing people’s driving skills based on race is the libertarian thing to do? You, sir, are a racist fuck.

  64. #64 |  Cynical in CA | 

    One can be a libertarian and still observe reality.

    The reality is, and it is an incontestable fact, that Asians cannot drive, especially Asian women. As I mentioned from my own extensive observations (not to mention the existence of the stereotype to begin with!!!), Asians cannot even properly cross a street without presenting a danger to themselves or others.

    I am not suggesting that it should be public policy to deny Asians the privilege of driving or walking. That would be decidedly unlibertarian.

    I do recommend knowing when you are driving in a heavily Asian-populated area, that you should use extreme care and watch out for Asian drivers and pedestrians. It serves me well in my daily routine.

    But your very valuable opinion is duly noted and filed appropriately, White Guy. Thank you for taking the time to think this through thoroughly and write such a cogent response. I eagerly await your next enlightening observation of reality so that I may learn and apply it to my life.

  65. #65 |  Don in NY | 

    I was a working taxpaying individual before I got a DWI. Due to the offense I lost my job and I’m basically unemployable. On the brighter side, all my living expenses such as housing, utilities, food, and medical are now being paid for by the generous taxpayers. What a productive system!

Leave a Reply