.
(or more generally, ‘driving under the influence’)
(which can include other ‘drugs’)
(even legally prescribed ones)
.
(‘driving under the influence of ???’ (aka ‘DUI’) is the ‘crime’ (or ‘offense’ of ‘driving’ (or ‘operating’) a ‘motor vehicle’ while impaired by ‘alcohol’ or other ‘drugs’ (including ‘recreational drugs’ + those prescribed by ‘physicians’), to a level that renders the ‘driver’ incapable of operating a ‘motor vehicle’ safely)
(early laws, such as that enacted in New Jersey, required proof of a state of intoxication with no specific definition of what level of inebriation qualified)
.
(the first generally accepted legal BAC limit was 0.15%)
(it’s been cut in ~half to ‘0.08’%)
.
(New York, for example, which had enacted a prohibition on driving while intoxicated in 1910, amended this law in 1941 to provide that it would constitute prima facie evidence of intoxication when an arrested person was found to have a BAC of .15 percent or higher, as ascertained through a test administered within two hours of arrest)
(New Jersey enacted the first law that specifically criminalized driving an automobile while intoxicated, in 1906)
(the new jersey statute provided that “[n]o intoxicated person shall drive a motor vehicle”)
.
(violation of this provision was punishable by a fine of up to $500 or a term of up to 60 days in ‘county jail’)
.
*federal law*
After the passage of federal legislation, the legal limit for commercial drivers is now set at 0.04%.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulation prohibits those who hold a commercial driver’s license from driving with an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater.
(a ‘commercial driver’ with an alcohol concentration of 0.02 or greater, but less than 0.04, must be removed from duty for ’24 hours’)
.
.
*ADVENTURES IN ‘DRUNK DRIVING’* –>
.
.
*OUR CONCLUSIONS* –>
“victimless crimes”
(justified by claiming an intentin to “save you from yourself”)
(and then to “save everyone else from you”)
a conVICTIon necessitates a VICTim (by definition)
(otherwise it’s wholly invalid)
the societal “risks” associated with “drunk driving” are grossly overblown by the majority of “pundits”…
even seemingly open-minded podcast hosts like joe rogan will support drunk driving laws while continuously touting “personal freedom” and claiming that there laws should not be enforced if no one harms another human being…
drunk driving laws by their very nature punish people who have not yet “harmed” anyone else…
yet i don’t hear many people railing against these laws…
when joe rogan had graham hancock (the british writer) on his podcast, they were both touting the fact that we “already have laws to punish bad behavior” (in reference to drug legalization)…
we also already have laws to punish reckless driving (if the person causes an accident)…
then why not eliminate preventative drunk driving laws…
joe rogan needs to convey this notion to his audiences…
because nobody’s listening to me…
.
.
.
.
.
.
💕💝💖💓🖤💙🖤💙🖤💙🖤❤️💚💛🧡❣️💞💔💘❣️🧡💛💚❤️🖤💜🖤💙🖤💙🖤💗💖💝💘
.
.
*🌈✨ *TABLE OF CONTENTS* ✨🌷*
.
.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥*we won the war* 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥