Fridays I try and lighten things up a bit here. It helps to relax things and laughter is always good for the soul (or something like that). However, that time just isn't quite there yet...
That 1 Guy's post about DUI on a damn lawnmower reminded me of a question I've had about the open container law that exists in pretty much every state. This law states that if you have an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle that you will be fined. Other than for income to the state, can anyone give any logical reason at all for this law?
Government is supposed to pass laws and use it's monopoly on force to protect freedom from being taken by other people. They're supposed to only stop people from doing things when there is imminent danger to others. If I am sitting in my car with an open beer and haven't even had a drink, how is this dangerous to others?
And don't even get me started on the 0.08 crap -- that's no imminent danger, either. You have the EXACT same percent chance of getting in/being in an accident if you have a 0.08 blood-alcohol level as you do with a 0.00 blood-alcohol level. In order for your odds of an accident to increase, your BAC needs to be about 0.17...
So can anyone possibly give ANY reason (again, other than cash for the state) that it's dangerous to anyone for me to have an open container of beer in a car? Even stretching and using the left's dictionary, I can't come up with a reason. Maybe it's For The Children (TM) somehow...
Intent.
It's like having a cop fine you for being drunk, in a running car behind the wheel of said car.
Intent.
Which is bullshit, just because it looks like your going to do it doesn't mean you intend on doing it.
Is that the excuse that's being used? I suppose it's consistent with those who oppose freedom -- government should only punish actions or those creating imminent danger -- never perceived intent.
Because as you allude -- just because I HAVE the beer open doesn't mean I'm drunk -- nor does not being able to fine me for having an open container preclude someone from stopping me if I am actually drunk.
No sir, you are absolutely, 100% correct - there is no basis whatsoever for that law other than to give the police [state] another reason to incriminate a free person and shake them down for some more of their wealth. It is right there with mandatory insurance laws which create brand new (mostly poor and minority people) criminals.
It SHOULD be illegal to drink too much and hurt somebody from behind the wheel, and it SHOULD be illegal to cause an accident without having the means to pay for the damage and/or the injuries, but it SHOULD NOT be illegal to drive safely without a seatbelt and with an open can of beer in your car. But it is, because our tyrannical Governments (both Fed and local) use these "laws" to create wealth by stealing what little bit of wealth the mostly poor people can manage to build.
"Other than for income to the state, can anyone give any logical reason at all for this law?"
Because driving drunk means you're driving with impaired judgement, which means you're more dangerous than driving while not distracted.
"You have the EXACT same percent chance of getting in/being in an accident if you have a 0.08 blood-alcohol level as you do with a 0.00 blood-alcohol level. In order for your odds of an accident to increase, your BAC needs to be about 0.17"
So you've been caught with .17 after running into something before, heh? You'd think that would tip you off that drunk driving is dangerous, instead of leaving you in denial...
How did I know no one would be able to give me any reason other than to raise cash?
Because if you have an open container, a passenger might spill your drink, and then you'd have to kill him for wasting beer.
The law is designed to prevent murders.