Armando V

Hmm, actually not in Phoenix. In Sept 29th, 2007 (I believe) we had a new Zero Tolerance law put into effect. They get you regardless of age and actually arrest you for 10 days, instead of 3 as I had thought, and 30 for an extreme DUI. Apparently Zero Tolerance means just that .00, so even medicine will get you a DUI over here... ~Armando

Yes, being that there is no way to judge objectively just HOW impaired you are then shouldn't it be be law that we dont drive while having consumed alcohol? Here in phoenix in 2006, 35% of the fatal accidents involved someone who had drank alcohol, although not all accidents are avoidable even when perfectly sober, it seams likely that some of those could have been avoided had the person made the decision not to drive in the first place. The one issue that still bothers me is that some people just might be fined and arrested unjustly with Zero Tolerance in place, particularly those who had something like Nyquil or even some breath freshner which contains alcohol. A leeway of .01 should work in order to avoid some of those mistakes though. ~ Armando

Hello, new to the forum and to objectivism and could use your thoughts on this something that's been nagging me lately. I live in Phoenix, AZ, where we have a zero tolerance law in place. Anyone who's drank ANY amount of alcohol and drives is arrested (if noticed) 3 days and fined something in the neighborhood of 2-3 thousand in addition to a 6-12 month rehabilitation school (which you pay for). Now I know that whatever risk I take is entirely my choice (regarding myself) and shouldn't be up to anyone else, the problem here is that I may put others at risk, therefore violating their rights? Is the government then justified to pass this law if it is to protect your right to your life from others that may choose to endanger it? A problem I see with this though, is that not all the people who've drank will be necessarily intoxicated or unable to drive safely. .08% BAC seams to be the standard in most other places, as I understand it anything under that is not considered intoxicated and therefore you don’t get fined and/or arrested. Essentially anyone who is under that, say .03% (here) will still be treated in the same manner as someone who is really far gone and clearly shouldn't have tried to drive. It seams to me that the ones under this limit are being unjustly arrested... though how would one judge how 'intoxicated' one is?. Although I personally know when I can and when I shouldn't drive, I can see how it may not be the same for everyone. As I notice, Rand wasn't very enthused with the idea of justifying an action by 'feel' (and rightly so), so how exactly could one determine objectively if one should drive after drinking? Should it be avoided all together? regardless of how 'sober' you may feel? is it morally wrong then to drive after drinking even if you don’t 'feel' impaired? I look forward to your responses. ~ Armando

Wow that was surprising and a great job, I really enjoyed it.