Herman Cain's Opposition to Overly Strict Drunk Driving Laws

At TPM, Benjy Sarlin reports that when Herman Cain was heading up the National Restaurant Association (a different NRA) in the late 1990s, he argued against overly strict drunk driving laws:

When Cain took over as CEO of the NRA in 1996, anti-drunk driving groups were leading a campaign to lower the blood alcohol limit for a DUI to .08 across the country: the equivalent for a 170 pound-man of about five beers in two hours. The majority of states used a .10 limit as their standard, which advocates argued was an insufficiently tough deterrent and left plenty of still-dangerous drivers on the road.

Enter the restaurant industry, whose members with liquor licenses faced diminished business as a result of the changes. Led by Cain, they lobbied hard against .08 changes at the state and federal level, claiming that research showed little improvement in states that had made the switch already....

“The problem is not the responsible drinker,” Cain wrote in one letter to the editor [in the Omaha-World Herald]. “It is the alcohol-abuser who gets behind the wheel of a car. In fact, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, two-thirds of all alcohol-related fatalities are caused by drivers with a BAC of 0.15 or higher.”

As is to be expected, Cain took some heat from anti-drunk driving groups. But Cain may have been on to something. As Sarlin also points out:

The NRA claimed vindication the next year when a report by the nonpartisan General Accounting Office determined that several studies cited to demonstrate the effectiveness of .08 laws relied on flawed methodology.

Congress still passed the more stringent national limit in 2000, however, and, as Reason has repeatedly reported, the absurdities of drunk driving policy have only increased since then.

Check out even more of Reason's alcohol coverage here. Read Reason's Herman Cain profile right here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tman||

    And Seth helps to level the field with a Pro-Cain post.

    I am no longer disappoint.

    Cain ain't perfect, but for every fault you can show me, I'll show you either a Romney or Obama perspective that will be far less libertarian than what Cain offers.

    I'm still not sold on him, but the prospect of a Romney/Obama battle is simply to disgusting to think about right now.

  • robc||

    Why quibble over Cain/Romney when Paul is on the ballot? And leading (maybe) in Iowa?

  • GILMORE||

    Tman|10.17.11 @ 4:04PM|#
    And Seth helps to level the field with a Pro-Cain post.

    I am no longer disappoint

    Cain is just a nutjob who is *right some of the time*.

    Is that so hard?

    Or does everything have to be a partisan game of, "Ignore their faults!!", and "Highlight the good!"

    Reason's treated all the GOP candidates the same.

    People seem to think because they're not *100%* dicksucking any particular Pol. that they're like, traitors to whatever flavor of partisanship the reader thinks is 'teh most0 good'. They're heretics for not being a Ron Paul echo chamber; they're 'liberals' for making fun of Cain... and OMG some of them voted for HUSSEIN!!

    What some people have failed to grok is that this paper can express political opinions without being beholden to @#()$* anyone.

    This manages to piss almost everyone off; with the exception of those few who find the lack of doctrinaire partisanship refreshing...

    pity the rest of you

  • ||

    You've been building that up inside of you for a while, haven't you? Good rant to you, sir.

  • ||

    The real question, I think, is how bad does a candidate have to be that I would vote instead for (1) the LP candidate or (2) Obama? As far as things go right now, there's no way I'm voting for Obama. However, a number of the GOP candidates suck enough that I'd vote LP rather than for them.

  • ||

    Why would you vote for either TEAM? If you're going to bother wasting your time, you might as well vote for the candidate you think is best.

  • ||

    I never vote party. Well, expect LP.

  • JB||

    A vote against Obama is like punching every Obama voter in the head.

    Too much joy for me to pass up on.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    You start from a flawed position. Rather than asking how bad GOP candidate must be to go 3rd party or, even worse in your estimation, vote for Obama, you should be starting from the position of how good a GOP must be in order to NOT vote 3rd party.

    At this point, short of Paul (a long shot) or Johnson (who has no chance due to an utter lack of exposure), there's NO FUCKING WAY I would vote anything BUT a 3rd party (LP assuming there's one on the ballot in KY).

    In fact, I'd vote for a communist party candidate as a means to register my protest for the validity of the system were that the only 3rd party on the ballot. Short of a 3rd party, I'll go and turn in a blank ballot.

    Cain has my attention, but I have little hope that he's much more than your average statist in small government clothes.

  • ||

    Just to be clear, I've been voting LP for president pretty much my entire voting life (since 1984), with a couple of exceptions, neither of which was recent.

    I might've voted for Johnson in the primary, but it's unlikely he'll be in the running then, either. So I'm voting Paul.

    As for the general, we'll have to see what things are like next November. If Obama still looks like he'd lose to a rock, then I'll LP. If he might have some chance (things could change between now and then despite his best efforts), I might vote GOP just to block. Romney is one I definitely won't vote for, and there are a few other candidates that fall into that category already.

    I'll definitely vote Paul in the general, if he makes it that far.

  • ||

    If he might have some chance (things could change between now and then despite his best efforts), I might vote GOP just to block.

    You do realize that the chances of it coming down to one vote are astronomical, right?

    /wiseacre

  • ||

    Yes, of course. Except when it's my vote.

  • Brett L||

    This is FL we're talking about. As someone likes to cite, (can't remember if its this board or somewhere else) if half the people in Alachua county who voted for Nader had voted for Gore instead, Jeb really would have had to steal the election for his brother.

  • Pip||

    Shove it, gilmore:

    He’s not a career politician (in fact he has never held political office). He’s known as a pizza guy, but there’s a lot more to him. He’s also a computer guy, a banker guy, and a rocket scientist guy.

    Here’s his bio:

    * Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics.
    * Master’s degree in Computer Science.
    * Mathematician for the Navy, where he worked on missile ballistics (making him a rocket scientist).
    * Computer systems analyst for Coca-Cola.
    * VP of Corporate Data Systems and Services for Pillsbury (this is the top of the ladder in the computer world, being in charge of information systems for a major corporation).

    All achieved before reaching the age of 35. Since he reached the top of the information systems world, he changed careers!

    * Business Manager. Took charge of Pillsbury’s 400 Burger King
    restaurants in the Philadelphia area, which were the company’s poorest performers in the country. Spent the first nine months learning the business from the ground up, cooking hamburger and yes, cleaning toilets. After three years he had turned them into the company’s best performers.
    * Godfather’s Pizza CEO. Was asked by Pillsbury to take charge of their Godfather’s Pizza chain (which was on the verge of bankruptcy). He made it profitable in 14 months.
    * In 1988 he led a buyout of the Godfather’s Pizza chain from
    Pillsbury. He was now the owner of a restaurant chain. Again he reached the top of the ladder of another industry.
    * He was also chairman of the National Restaurant Association during this time. This is a group that interacts with government on behalf of the restaurant industry, and it gave him political experience from the non-politician side.
    Having reached the top of a second industry, he changed careers again!

    * Adviser to the Federal Reserve System. Herman Cain went to work for the Federal Reserve Banking System advising them on how monetary policy changes would affect American businesses.
    * Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. He worked his way up to the chairmanship of a regional Federal Reserve bank. This is only one step below the chairmanship of the entire Federal Reserve System (the top banking position in the country). This position allowed him to see how monetary policy is made from the inside, and understand the political forces that impact the monetary system.
    After reaching the top of the banking industry, he changed careers for a fourth time!

    * Writer and public speaker. He then started to write and speak on leadership. His books include Speak as a Leader, CEO of Self, Leadership is Common Sense, and They Think You’re Stupid.
    * Radio Host. Around 2007—after a remarkable 40 year career—he
    started hosting a radio show on WSB in Atlanta (the largest talk radio station in the country).
    He did all this starting from rock bottom (his father was a chauffeur and his mother was a maid). When you add up his accomplishments in his life—including reaching the top of three unrelated industries: information systems, business management, and banking—

    STACK THAT UP AGAINST THE ‘COMMUNITY ORGANIZER’….Herman Cain may have the most impressive resume of anyone that has run for the presidency in the last half century.

    http://www.israpundit.com/archives/40345

  • Brandon||

    "Herman Cain may have the most impressive resume of anyone that has run for the presidency in the last half century."

    If you ignore Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

  • Ron Paul||

    I'm a doctor,damn it!

  • Gary Johnson||

    I was a governor. That's novel.

  • Guest||

    Gary Johnson and Ron Paul can never win in a country that has the light turned out and is sliding down the hill.

    Simple fact: You need Herman Cain before you will ever get a GJ or RP. Cain will start pushing the city back up to the top as his impressive and unique experience proves he;s a real leader. We need Cain to help us get the lights turned back on in our children.

    The fact that marxist professor is an idiot will be self evident in the youth and they will be seeking you libertarians out. Have some vision people and don't let the shiny things distract you.

  • Anacreon||

    But despite all you say, "Pulitzer-Prize Winning Columnist" Leonard Pitts wrote today that Cain is embarassed to have black skin. (As, of course, any black man who is not a Democrat must be.)

  • Maxxx||

    Did Think Progess's CBU (Cain Bashing Unit) hijack reason.com?

  • ||

    Dear Reason,
    Why do you always take Team Blue's side by always digging up dirt and bashing the perfectly noble candidates on Team Red?

    Oh wait. What the-?!

  • Tman||

    Go look at who everyone at Reason voted for.

    Many voted for Obama, who is arguably about as anti-liberty and pro-big government a candidate and a president as any we've seen in decades.

    It's not a TEAM RED/TEAM BLUE thing. It's common sense. How could anyone claim to be libertarian have voted for Obama?

    IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

  • Joe M||

    I think a lot of people had serious Bush fatigue, and had really convinced themselves that somehow Obama would be better on civil liberties and war. They knew he would suck on spending and related issues, but there was some serious mass hypnosis on the other stuff.

    I think it's pretty similar to GWB. Voting for him in 2000 based on his campaign could almost be forgiven, almost. Voting for him again in 2004, after seeing how he actually governed: big no-no. I'm expecting much better from the staff in 2012.

  • ||

    Most of the people who actually post stories to H&R didn't vote for Obama. The only two I can think of are Cavanaugh and Bailey. So stop with the bullshit pretense that it was "many".

    Your TEAM RED is showing. Hard. Of course, this was a given for many people here as soon as the "right" TEAM RED guy showed up.

  • ||

    You're right most of the present staff voted Barr/none of the above for '08.

    Besides, this article is intended to be a positive for Cain. Unless you're one of those odd libertarians (Tulpa) who thinks dui laws are too lenient.

    It's only a hit piece if you're a slobbering nanny-stater...all slobbering nanny-staters raise their hands, please.

  • ||

    You know, that's an excellent question: Is Tulpa a libertarian? Discuss amongst yourselves.

  • ||

    I thought he was a Rastafarian, or maybe some kind of outer space potato man.

  • nicole||

    Perhaps he is Ocampan, and thus young-but-old and also conservative. The Caretaker loves us!

  • ||

    Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, odds are it's a duck.

  • ||

    I thought he was a vegisaurus.

  • Toolpa||

    Sorry, I stepped out to beat the crap out of a suspect. What were you saying?

  • Toolpa||

    Sorry, I stepped out to beat the crap out of a suspect. What were you saying?

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    Balko and a solid an-cap blogger I know have written in (cautious) opposition to DUI laws...

    (Pardon my Cavanaughish invasion of someone else's blog.)

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I am against DUI laws for a simple reason:

    Person A successfully, and without endangering anyone and obeying all traffic laws, navigates his way from point C to D.

    Person B successfully, and without endangering anyone and obeying all traffic laws, navigates his way from point C to D.

    Why should Person B be subject to State Action depending on his BAC/BAL? Just because?

    If you are high, drunk, texting, whatever, as long as you obey traffic laws and do not place anyone in danger, lethal or otherwise, drive as thou wilt.

  • Aaron R||

    Driving under the influence is like shooting a loaded gun at a crowd. Maybe you won't hit someone.

  • KDN||

    Driving under the influence is like shooting a loaded gun at a crowd. Maybe you won't hit someone.

    As someone that's logged entirely too many miles operating a vehicle while being over our comically low legal limit, I have to disagree. It all depends on the baseline quality of the driver; I have a few friends I won't let drive me around while they're sober, and I have others that I trust to get me home so long as they're mildly coherent. Our systems treats both of these types as equals, though.

  • Brandon||

    Aw, someone is still trying to get that gold star from his DARE teacher! And this shows the quality of the current "Debate" over DUI laws. There is absolutely no way to support our current DUI laws other than stupid talking points and tired emotional appeals.

  • KDN||

    I wholeheartedly agree, Rev Blue. Does it really make sense for a guy doing 50 in a 45, something which only gets you pulled over by the most dickish of cops, and operating his car otherwise within the established rules to have his license revoked for six months? I think not.

    It's true though that alcohol does handicap one's driving ability in most cases, so as a matter of policy I think there should be some disincentive to limit drinking and driving. To me it would make more sense to treat alcohol as a penalty escalator rather than make DUI a blanket ban.

  • Coeus||

    To me it would make more sense to treat alcohol as a penalty escalator rather than make DUI a blanket ban.

    That makes more sense, but less then eliminating that shit altogether enforcing "reckless driving". Which, thanks to the mass amounts of cameras employed by police, doesn't even ride on the cops descretion. You can let a jury decide from the tape, if it seems questionable.

  • Tman||

    Bailey, Cavanuagh, Bartlett, Chapman. Those are the writers I know of.

    Here's the link-

    http://reason.com/archives/200.....singlepage

    It was enough to be "many" IMO. Again, this isn't a RED/BLUE thing, it's a "who is more likely to support free markets and free minds" thing.

    You always try and pin me with this Epi, but it don't stick. I've never been a Team Red hack, and I'm not about to start now just because of Obama.

  • ||

    I don't need to pin anything on you; you do it to yourself. You've picked your TEAM RED candidate, and now you're already complaining about how reason covers him. How is that not being a TEAM RED hack?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Is Ron Paul TEAM RED? If not, then on what basis are you choosing Cain as TEAM RED? I know that you really, really like to epistemologically paint everyone with one brush or the other, but that is just plain lazy on your part. Tman is distinguishing between different shades; you are just lumping them all together.

  • ||

    Commodore, you should really just post as yourself. You're not fooling anyone.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I guess I should consider myself PWNED by your...name-calling?

  • Tman||

    If it comes down to who is the most free market candidate, Cain wins in a landslide with me.

    If you want to pin me as TEAM RED for that so be it, but you're only fooling yourself.

  • EPIDOUCHE||

    And now that I've yelled 'TEAM RED' at someone for having a positive non-nihilistic opinion of someone in the GOP, my work here is done. But I'm still going to be a fucking douce.

  • Mike M.||

    And don't forget Journolister and professional concern troll Dave Weigel, who wrote for Reason all throughout the election and then booked on out of here about ten seconds after Obama won the election.

  • Truth||

    Dude is a prick, hoping Tracey doesn't turn into the new Weigel.

  • Veemee Sashimi||

    Chapman pulled the lever for Obama too, even more enthusiastically than Bailey and Cavanaugh (who it was hard to tell how serious he was in the first place).

    For the first few years Chapman continued to defend Obama on here until recently he finally stopped doing so.

  • Lowdog||

    Did some people think that there would be gridlock with a Dem president? I don't remember whether Congress and Senate were mostly Dem or Rep at that point.

    Still, I agree, and didn't vote for Hopey - I voted 'L' as usual.

  • ||

    I was flat-out amazed that anyone considering himself a libertarian would vote for an obvious statist like Obama. Especially considering that voting for another Democrat would clearly be misread as a mandate for stuff most of us didn't want.

  • ||

    The House and Senate had flipped back to Democrat in 2006, and leading up to the 2008 elections, Bush/GOP fatigue made it obvious that landslide Dem victories were coming in both the House and Senate (which, of course, turned out to be the case). Obama led handily in the polls after September 2008.

    Anyone who voted Obama knowingly was NOT voting for divided government. (I voted McCain (whom I abhor) for this reason alone.)

    The resulting 2008 Dem landslide resulted in one of the few times in history that one party controlled the presidency and Congress with a filibuster-proof Senate majority. The result was the $787B stimulus and Obamacare.

  • ||

    NAL,
    I assume you'll be voting for Obama in 2012 when it looks like Republicans will handily take the House and Senate? I mean, that was a valid reason for a libertarian to vote for McCain, but by that logic, is it not valid reason to vote for Obama in 2012 as well?

    All this assuming our vote really matters and we should thus vote for the lesser of two evils, of course...which I don't buy.

  • ||

    Can't assume anything. I was just answering Lowdog's question. Those who voted Obama were not rolling the dice hoping for divided gov't.

  • ||

    "Go look at who everyone at Reason voted for."

    Most of them voted for Bob Barr or didn't vote, if I remember right. Only a couple people actually on the Reason staff voted for Obama in swing states, and that was back when Obama seemed to be a thoughtful tabula rasa who would at least consider some libertarian ideas better than McCain would, as opposed to the reality that he's a a disingenuous, state-fellating prick. Some voted for McCain for economic reasons as well.

    None of this implies Reason is somehow being unfair by vetting Republican candidates hard; their collective opinions on Obama have been very clearly almost universally negative, but fair. I would expect the same treatment for any non-libertarian candidate of any party.

  • Joe M||

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I've been thinking about this, and have opened up to the idea somewhat. Norquist is right, of course, that opening up another tax channel is a serious potential problem. However, the tax channel it opens is visible to everybody. It replaces taxes that are now invisible. That is a good thing, and should help keep it from being abused. Also, this tax reform, especially if coupled with regulation reform, could do what Reagan's tax reform did and lead to an economic boom that lasts a generation. That's probably worth the possibility of rate-creep down the road. We can't plan ahead forever, and sometimes you have to win the battles you can now, and not let the ones that might pop up years in the future stop you.

    I'm not sold yet, but I do think it's worth considering.

  • Maxxx||

    However, the tax channel it opens is visible to everybody. It replaces taxes that are now invisible. That is a good thing, and should help keep it from being abused.

    The proposed sales tax increase in CA was voted down by large margins in every county last time.

    The other thing about Cain's plan is that it ends the fiction that SS and Medicare are "insurance" programs that the recipients paid for.

  • ||

    Very good point that I hadn't thought of. Thanks.

  • Pip||

    And it doesn't tax the sale of used items (think used cars), which is great for middle-class people and the environment. Contrast that to Cash For Clunckers.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Preserving wealth instead of destroying it. Radical, man!

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    If the 9-9-9 thing is all done with constitutional ammendments that include the 9's as hard coded limits, then I'd be OK with it. It would be an improvement over what we have now. But if you consider the fact that with out hard limits it'll be a 15-35-17 plan in about twenty years, I'm 100% against it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I'm really starting to hate Nirquist. He's just unthinking now. Was his organization really ever that effective?

  • Robert||

    Mr. Norquist thinks more between brushing his teeth and spitting the toothpaste out than most people do all day. And yes, his organiz'n has been that effective.

  • A Serious Man||

    Well Cain is more tolerable than Romney and Perry, but then again how impressive is that? I'd vote for him before Obama.

  • Old Mexican||

    Congress still passed the more stringent national limit in 2000, however, and, as Reason has repeatedly reported, the absurdities of drunk driving policy have only increased since then.


    "Don't you stand there - approve something!"

    The NRA claimed vindication the next year when a report by the nonpartisan General Accounting Office determined that several studies cited to demonstrate the effectiveness of .08 laws relied on flawed methodology.


    No one expects the US Congress!

  • ¢||

    Why do you always take Team Blue's side by always digging up dirt and bashing the perfectly noble candidates on Team Red?

    Well, whatever use Reason is putting it to, TPM generated the article for a TEAM BLUE! audience, and that audience is obediently outraged.

    If you think that D voters are against not-even-drunk driving laws, because being against them seems kinda "liberal" or something, you don't know your TEAMs. BLUE! is for laws. All of 'em. It doesn't matter what those laws say, because any absence of law is interpretable, in their dipshit metaphysic, as "corporate welfare."

    So that's how they're interpreting this, just like TPM told them to.

    "Uncle Koch!"

  • ||

    Is the pictured pizza actually a Godfather's pizza? I think it's important that Reason be factually correct in this regard.

  • ||

    It looks like the kind of shit you'd eat. All covered in shitty toppings. You disgust me!

  • ||

    Really, I'm talking journalistic integrity. Not whatever offal pizza you consume.

  • ||

    So you're not denying that you cover your pizza in shitty toppings. Noted.

  • ||

    Nor do you deny that you masticate on pizza made of offal.

    Your failed riposte is like that scene in Rob Roy when Liam Neeson grabbed Tim Roth's sword, only you grabbed it and stabbed yourself with it.

  • Jeff P||

    The new Pizza Hut Double Stuffed Haggis-Lovers Pizza!

  • ||

    "Too offal? There's no such thing!"

  • ||

    If by offal you mean "fresh crust, fresh mozzarella, fresh sauce, fresh basil, and fresh garlic", then yes. And your depiction of them as offal explains a lot about your taste in pizza, Mr. low-moisture part skim greasy toppings guy.

  • ||

    Too late, offal-eater. And I'm the one with the Scottish blood. I expect better from the admittedly culinarily superior Italians.

  • ||

    You mean offal like liver? Heart? Kidneys? Tripe? Sure, I eat offal. Because it's good.

    I think you've confused yourself, ProL. Eating shitty pizza will do that to you.

  • ||

    All that stuff is kind of disgusting on pizza, dude.

    By the way, what's your position on Mellow Mushroom?

  • ||

    I didn't say on pizza. That's what I wanted you to think with your soft, human brain.

    What the hell is mellow mushroom?

  • ||

    It's a chain of hippie pizza. I like it okay, surprisingly.

    I just checked--It's only in a handful of states. I thought it had a bigger footprint.

  • ||

    That menu looks terrible. "Buttered" crust?!? My god, you truly have the worse taste in pizza. Worse than Hitler.

  • ||

    I'm worse than Hitler? Oh, yeah? Well you're worse than Hitler!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Mellow Mushroom = Too Sweet

  • ||

    We have one locally. My wife and I get the Kosmic Karma, which has sun-dried tomatoes, pesto, and feta cheese, among other things. I like their crust, too.

    Place employs almost exclusively people who look like Occupy idiots.

  • Abdul||

    Place employs almost exclusively people who look like Occupy idiots.
    reply to this

    Well, the ones at Mellow Mushroom have jobs, so they are light-years ahead of OWS, regardless of their looks/smell.

  • Pip||

    The one on Highland in Atlanta is a claen foodie'snightmare. Oh the things I've seen there.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Any thoughts on what a deep dish pizza topped by the shards of Michael Bay DVDs would taste like?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Like....VICTORY!!!

  • ||

    Like deep dish pizza.

  • ||

    deep dish is many things, but it is not PIZZA

    not getting into a no true pizza/scotsman thang thouhg...

  • Coeus||

    What, only pizza talk on this thread, dunphy? No defense for MADD's .08? Maybe you could combine the two and tell us that there's no constitutional right to eat pizza and we should be thankful that it isn't banned entirely?

  • ||

    nice troll attempt, but you can skew and misstate my points about DUI (which are constitutionally valid) all you want, but it won't change the underlying reality.

    but the issue of

    1) what legal limit should states set for their DUI statutes?

    almost never has any sort of constitutional trigger. it's a policy issue.

    there is no RIGHT to drive with a BAC of (for example) .06, .08, .12, or whatever level a state chooses to enforce as the prima facie limit or the limit where it is ilelgal to drive with that threshold amount

    even if a limit is arguably set too low... it's not some sort of cosmic injustice. the law is well publicized, and it's one of the few crimes that the truly innocent have foolproof defense against false conviction. (which i have explained ad nauseum)

    the reality is that it's like medical tests.

    if the level is set low, there are plenty of people who frankly due to high tolerance etc. are not really impaired much at that level, and could probably drive better than a lot of sober people, but are still breaking the law based on the prima facie limit

    it's like an oversensitive diagnostic test. false positives vs. missed diagnoses.

    however, it's still not a process injustice, because the level is applied equally to all, and it's a BRIGHT LINE law, thus taking away subjectivity, which is generally a good thing

    look at it like age of consent laws.

    they are , to a large extent arbitrary. much more so than prima facie DUI limit laws.

    but it's better to set a bright line level somewhere, then rely on subjective (thus easily prone to corruption, politics, prejudice etc.) determinations in each case to decide who was and wasn't "ready" to consent based on their emotional maturity.

    hey, that may suck if you find a 14 yr old YOU think you should be able to schtup w./o state interference, but tough fucking shit man.

    the fact that some states can set such vastly disparate ages of consent show the law is very arbitrary in the DETERMINATION, but it's not process unjust in that it's a bright line

    personally, i think WA's is pretty reasonable - 16 yoa is good to go for a partner of any age and 14 and 15 are ok when the other person is within so many months of the age of the under 16'er

    18 is ridiculous imo

  • Coeus||

    Skew and misstate? Your favorite damn argument is that "there's no constitutional right to drive with a .08". Which is a strange argumement coming from a self-professed "principled libertarian". It actually sounds like a constutionalists argment, wait... Constutionalists wouldn't make that argument.
    http://www.duicenter.com/lectures/exception01.html
    Guess it's just an authoritarian's argument.

    Further, you defend the .08 pushed by the neo-prohibitionists. Not sure how I'm skewing or misstating that either. (shit, you love them so damn much you gave them partial credit for lowering traffic fatalities. I've heard smarter opinions from White Indian)

    Now, this process unjust shit? Who the fuck cares? If it applies to everyone equally it's suddenly just (and we both know that connected people get away whith it all the time, but lets ignore that fact for the sake of argument)? If you say "no, just process just", I say "who fucking cares?" What the hell kind of libertarian are you? If the legislature decides to fuck everyone up the ass with barbed wire, is everything just fine and dandy as long as everyone gets a turn? That's a fucking retarded argument, but then, there aren't really any intelligent ones to make in favor of DUI laws, so I can see your dilemma.

    As to age of consent laws, that's simple. The age of consent is the same as the lowest age person your state has tried as an adult for any crime.

  • ||

    yawn. if you cannot even properly state my position, i'm done. i didn't defend or attack the .08 level as the established limit

    i am saying that the state is well within its authority to set such a limit, and ANY limit is necessarily a trade-off

    a higher limit will necessarily mean that some people who are substantially impaired will not meet fall under the criminal code (at least for their blood level - driving issues aside. you may not get a pattern due to various conditions), and lower level means some people, especially those with an excellent tolerance will barely be affected at all, but will still be breaking the law

    welcome to the real world - where tradeoffs are routinely made in situations like this.

    as long as the limit is established in published law, then nobody is caught surprised by it. if you think it should be higher or lower - great. that's tangential to my point.

  • Coeus||

    i am saying that the state is well within its authority to set such a limit,

    Except it's not. By any metric. In order to enforce it, the state violates the constitiution. To set it at all violates the proper role of government from a libertarian perspective (which I would think would be important to a self professed principled libertarian).

    welcome to the real world - where tradeoffs are routinely made in situations like this.

    Familiar argument, where have I heard it before? Oh, right. Everytime the government pushes for more power, someone from team red or blue always throws that line out. It's a bullshit justification then and it's a bullshit justification now.

    i didn't defend or attack the .08 level as the established limit

    Really?

    http://reason.com/blog/2011/09.....tcontainer
    "i think .08 is more REASONable though."

    You defended it against anything lower (which is correct, if obvious), and you always specifically cite it when defending the law. You seem like a pretty staunch defender. So what's your take? If not .08, what level should the government graciously allow us to possess?

  • Matrix||

    I haven't had Godfathers since high school, but it does kinda look like I remember it.

  • ||

    You know, I don't think I've ever had any.

  • ||

    I liked it when they first introduced them in Kentucky in the late 70s. It was pretty good, but dropped off when I was in high school. At this point, it is only sold in gas stations around here. No, I am not kidding.

  • ||

    I think that's pretty much their business model here, too. I can't recall the last standalone Godfather's that I've seen.

  • Abdul||

    Being able to gas-up and eat at the same time is not considered unusual in Kentucky. In Tennessee, Citgo is an acceptable wedding reception venue.

  • Robert||

    Remember the Citgo TV commercial (they'd only recently changed the name of the gas stns. from Cities Service) where the guy has moved in? "It's a nice place to visit, but you wouldn't want to live there...would you?" Showering in the car wash, opening the road map to read like a newspaper...well done.

  • wef||

    Could "give pizza a chance" will when Cain the nomination?

    http://www.omaha.com/article/2...../710119907

  • ||

    I have my doubts about him, but Cain isn't the worst guy out there.

  • ||

    No. The worst candidate already has the job.

  • Flex Nasty B.I.G.||

    I am 170lbs, and guarantee you that five beers over the course of two hours would leave me completely shitfaced - double vision and slurring included. I guarantee you would not want me behind the wheel of a car.

    In any case, legal BAC level is not an issue on which libertarians should be taking a position. Roadway companies should set whatever standard they want, and roadway customers should choose which roadway companies to use. Insurance companies should also play a part in there somewhere.

  • Tango Mike||

    Seriously? I don't think my Buzz-O-Meter would even register that trace amount.

  • nicole||

    Five beers over the course of two hours for a 170-lb man would also NOT lead to a BAC of 0.08, according to this handy Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself calculator. You'd have to weigh 178 lbs to drink that much in that amount of time (as a man) to be legal.

  • Aaron R||

    5 beers in 2 hours? You are an alcoholic.

  • Veemee Sashimi||

    Remember those are five 12 oz beers. If you drink in pints from a draft, five pints would be like 8.33 beers. So yeah you should be good and hammered if you drank that many in two hours and weighed 170.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    In any case, legal BAC level is not an issue on which libertarians should be taking a position.

    D'oh. Libertarianism is about a people's relationship with its government. Anything legal is fair game.

    Roadway companies should set whatever standard they want, and roadway customers should choose which roadway companies to use.

    Wow...thanks for that.

    Is your argument really that libertarians should have nothing more to say than "privatize the roads!"

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Rev Blue Moon,

    Libertarianism is about a people's relationship with its government. Anything legal is fair game.


    You missed the poing entirely, RBM. What the author means is that a discussion on what alcohol level should be acceptable is as irrelevant to freedom as discussing the appropriate legal length of a lady's skirt.

    Is your argument really that libertarians should have nothing more to say than "privatize the roads!"


    No. Another is "Kill all the moronic busybodies!" So, you better hide.

  • Robert||

    No, libertarianism is about people's relationships with each other, including but not limited to the people in gov't.

  • ||

    legal BAC level is not an issue on which libertarians should be taking a position.

    Some of us, like it or not, live in the real world.

  • ||

    The law should deal with actual harm, not theoretically possible harm.

    Just because something *could conceivably* happen doesn't mean it is inevitable.

  • FlyoverCountry||

    It is inevitable! And it will harm the CHILDREN!!!!11!

    All of it! All of those un-lawed-against things!

  • ||

    Jesus Christ these pizza flame wars are making me wish Heap Big Derp would come and take a big greasy shit on this thread. Enough!

  • ||

    Who the fuck puts sage on their pizza?

  • ||

    I put sage on Epi's pizza. Well, in a manner of speaking...

  • ||

    At last, I win.

  • Pallid Aboriginal||

    Pizza? Pizza is a tool of the city-state [Loving] Libertarian officers to oppress teh eARTh and gamboling noble savages everywhere.

    Now, sure, while a well-made deep-dish loaded with the freshest toppings is a wonder to behold, it cannot compete against running for one's life from a stampeding herd of bison, or freezing half to death in the winter, or contracting rabies.

    Therefore you are all big meanies for supporting the eARTh-raping pizza that I scarf down while being given no choice but to use civilisation-produced computers and internet.

    Mother do I have to leave the basement? I don't wanna go outside. I wanna play Warcraft.

  • ||

    That raises a good question: What would a paleolithic pizza look like? Cooked in fire, of course. No tomatoes, unfortunately. Wild basil? When did we start making cheese? Post-domestication, right?

  • JMW||

    I'm sure cheese is out of the question unless you think being gored by an angry mother aurochs while you milk her is an acceptable occupational hazard.

  • Mr. Mark||

    I'm going to have to vote for somebody. Somebody has got to go unseat that incompetent numbskull in the oval orifice next year. Cain seems like one of the least horrible of the available choices - if he would just stop trying to compete with Joe Biden in the dumb statements department (Banning mosques comment, right of return comment, electric fence comment, and so on.)

  • jtuf||

    So, Cain's stance on drug laws is more libertarian than Obama's.

  • ||

    He wanted the BAC to be .0999

  • Evan from Evansville||

    Humor. I recognize that. Nice-uh.

  • Guest||

    Professor do you believe a Creator allows freewill?

    Professor: Sure, I'll play along.

    Did you support Obamacare?

    Professor: Yes.

    Then you do not accept freewill and you are a potential tyrant.

    Professor: You just flunked this course pal.


    Hey climate scientist, do you believe the Creator allows freewill?

    Climate scientist: I don't believe a Creator exist let alone that one allows freewill.

    Skeptic: Einstein was right.

    Climate scientist: Silence skeptic! We must sacrifice your rights and do what's best for society as I see fit.

    Devil: I don't exist! It was Marx and Engels who dethroned your Framer's Creator Concept - in order to destroy your capitalism with a bunch of demi-God demagogues.

    Creator: People seem to blame me because of what man has done - with an OBVIOUS self evident truth - which even an atheist can adhere to - the concept which the scientific method can be applied - where an atheist can even write a document steeply based in that Concept that deist and various sects of Christians could agree and form a nation. Test the concept throughout history. Did the tyrants of history deny the freewill which is self evident a Creator/Concept allows?

    Professor: Your founders were racist capitalist pig slave holders.

    Common Sense: Professor with all due respect the Founding Fathers knew they couldn’t fight the Civil War before the American Revolution or shortly thereafter and remain United States. They were wise enough to put mechanisms in place though.

    The reason we are were we are at this point in time is because we lost track of our Founding’s Concept that preceded and lead to the DOI. The Concept that Our Creator allows us freewill. whether we believe in a Creator or not we have to believe the self evident Concept.

  • ||

    Herman Cain should be grateful that making crappy pizza isn't a crime or he'd be on death row by now.

  • Chicago||

    Our pizza is the best thing to come out of Chicago, not Barack Obama.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement