I can only respond to what you write. You said you "think we're overboard on drunk driving".

Let's start a new thread if you are still interested in this. You have some of my ideas 180 degrees backwards, probably because of my writing style and errors. I am not say driving on drugs other than alcohol is worse or that it's okay to allow people to take drugs such as alcohol and put others at risk. You have almost everything I think wrong, probably due to my well-known tendency to omit words and make other errors.

The 21st amendment repealed the entire 18th amendment, not "only a small part of prohibition": "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." The 18th amendment was about alcohol. It did not include drugs. There had been some laws taxing and regulating drugs, but the "war" prohibiting drugs did not begin until the 1970s. The 21st amendment in 1933 repealed prohibition.

"Hard drugs" means those that are more addictive and potent such as heroin and cocaine in comparison with marijuana, not "the focus of prohibition". The hard drugs are regarded as more serious because they are more damaging in both their effects and rapidity of addiction.

None of them, "hard" or not, are "on a par with caffeine". Regardless of the "hard drug" category, all of them are now prohibited, but more recently with a growing movement in law allowing marijuana. Prohibiting them is an attempt to protect people from themselves, but not only that: Manipulating other people, including children, into addiction is properly regarded as a serious crime.

The risk to others from driving under the influence of drugs is not "several times worse" than alcohol; it depends on the drug and the amount of drugs or alcohol. Instances of more serious danger possible from drugs do not reduce the danger and proper status of criminality for drunk driving. Prohibiting drunk driving is because of what it is, unrelated to either the 'war on drugs' or a "broad trend of criminalizing things." There is no excuse to allow drunk driving or driving mentally impaired due to drugs.

Drunk driving is prohibited because drunks kill people, caused by the nature of the mental impairment they choose, not "fortune working against you" after a mere "stupid risk" with no foreseeable consequences. They are responsible for their own decisions and the consequences. It is murder, in the form of involuntary manslaughter and felony death by vehicle, with technical details varying in different states. The criminal punishment is less severe under the law when someone is not killed -- as in many other categories -- because of the lack of malicious intent to kill, but the impairment causing the danger is chosen.

"Prohibition was repealed by the 21st amendment in 1933. There are no signs that it will be reinstated a"
Only a small part of prohibition was repealed by amendment. The idea of treating people's drug use a crime persisted. Alcohol was exempted.

"The 'war on drugs' against hard drugs "
Hard means the focus of prohibition. The war on drugs includes drugs that are much less harmful than alcohol. Users of khat, which is on par with caffeine, are treated like armed robbers.

"[drug prohibition] has nothing to do with the prohibition on drunk driving. "
I don't assert it does or does not. I agree treating drunk driving as a serious criminal offense is not part of a conspiracy to increase prohibition of drugs or to start prohibiting more drugs. I think the way we treat drunk driving is part of a broad trend of criminalizing things.

If you drive a car, you are increasing the risk to others. If you do it on drugs, the risk is several times worse. If you get caught but don't hurt anyone, it's treated as a minor crime. If fortune works against you and you hurt or kill someone while operating under the influence, it's treated like murder. This seems illogical to me. I don't have an answer about how to deal with someone who took a stupid risk and someone died. I just think we're overboard on drunk driving.

I suppose leftists would like to prohibit as many things as they can get away with and to the extent they can get away with. They have up in alcohol because they made too much money on taxes. Same thing with marijuana. They want to prohibit consumption of sugar, but they can’t do it yet. Same thing with nicotine and tobacco, although the tax revenue keeps consumption from going to zero. Prostitution is prohibited mostly

Prohibition was repealed by the 21st amendment in 1933. There are no signs that it will be reinstated and the use of drugs is increasingly tolerated in law. The 'war on drugs' against hard drugs has nothing to do with the prohibition on drunk driving. It is also illegal to drive under the influence of drugs, but objective tests are more difficult. Any kind of observed reckless driving is also illegal. There is no reason to prohibit driving after drinking coffee or tea.

"This is prohibition again."
Prohibition never stopped. Drug abuse went from being a personal temperance issue 100 years ago. Eventually by accident of history, caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine were exempted. Then around 1970 in turned into a "war" mentality. It's unhealthy in some many ways. I agree with your suspicion that this mentality makes us treat drunk driving as more criminal than other risky behavior.

Exactly

DUI laws should affect drivers licenses, but as long as there is no injury, I think the criminal DUI laws should be repealed. Doesnt criminality require a victim?

Not much different in Las Vegas. Terrible drivers who do things all day without even being drunk. Mostly because of inattention and the desire to make split second major driving decisions without regard to physics or the presence of other drivers on the road.

Given the number of billboards advertising lawyers , I would say that drunk driving is one of the least problems here in terms of the number of accidents.

Running around threatening and endangering people is criminal. Just like the shooter example.

It would be a mock pardon. An an 'entitled', she has no legal accountability.

True. Nor should it try to make workers in other countries or our own workers uncompetitive

I don’t think that driving and not causing harm is a crime. It becomes a crime when harm is done

If he pardoned her, it would piss me off a lot. I suspect the same reaction from the others who voted for hum

The government is not supposed to be making any workers "competitive".

"Criminal" is a legal concept, not just a "label". You said you "don't think it's reasonable to obey such laws."

Private roads, like private property anywhere, are not the basis of protecting the rights of the individual from criminal behavior. Wanting to eliminate enforcement of criminal law because the crime is on private property takes us back to the subjectivist "anarcho capitalist" mentality and its bizarre "private defense agencies".

Whatever Hillary's degree of recognition, if any, of her own illegal activities, her dominant thoughts are that it doesn't matter for someone of her entitlement -- which is why she defied court orders, the FBI did not make her testify under oath or make a transcript, she cynically laughed it all off with defiantly ignorant jokes about "wiping", and otherwise ignored it. That statute of limitations (10 years or less for espionage) is running out and nothing will be done to hold her accountable. https://www.americanthinker.com/artic...

A Trump "pardon", if he were to do it, would have no practical effect on her politically exempt legal situation, but would serve the purpose of sticking it in her face and reminding everyone else of her guilt and the power-mongering double standard of the Democrats' FBI/Mueller persecutions.

Yes, it's MADD. What was an honest effort by a few concerned people has been irrationally perverted into more government powers and less individual liberty.

Hillary knows she is guilty and got caught. Trump will NEVER pardon her, at least in my opinion.

As to Snowden, I was surprised at his reaction. I would have thought a pardon was coming down the pike immediately after election. But, I think that Trump has this time, and other times as well, pandered to the establishment. He should have brought snowden back and put him in as a watchdog right here in the USA with his security clearance reinstated. I wasnt pleased with his reaction to Snowden, or in fact his recent trade war with china. What he needs to do is stick to making sure USA workers are competitive with Chinese workers, which they are NOT now. USA workers are entitled, under educated, and under motivated. Best workers are chinese (right in china), and then first generation illegal workers from central america, Worst workers are second generation socialist central american workers spoiled by American welfare, entitled blacks. Trump supporting american workers are ok, but somewhat saddled by expectations not in line with world productivity standards however.

Trump has been antagonistic towards Snowden, and his administration has sided with the police-state wing of the NSA, FBI and CIA wanting more arbitrary surveillance and weakening of privacy such as use of encryption -- everything that Snowden exposed and more. With Trump's emotional thinking and lack of knowledge and principles he is easily swayed by who knows what kind of arguments that get to him first. Maybe he will switch again on Snowden, who knows? You never know what he will do.

Hillary will not be held accountable for her obvious and severe violations of security laws that she doesn't care about for her own arrogant convenience and entitlement to power to do what she wants. Maybe Trump will pardon her just to make a point, sticking the hypocrisy in their faces. Remember the story that leaked out during the campaign debates: Trump and Hillary were back stage before a debate. Hillary was arrogantly pushing her way through with a pseudo polite "pardon me". Trump said, "If I win the election I'll consider it."

Wow. I think I totally agree with your comments ability trump and his effect in the March to collectivism. The philosophical basis of half the population is very collectivist (they voted for Hillary) and the philosophical basis of the other half is only marginally non collectivist (but mostly dependent a lot on belief in one god or another)

I much prefer the emotional outbursts of trump than the hidden agendas and lies of Hillary and Obama. I also think that when it comes to actions that trump is much more careful and deliberate than it appears. He has to be to have been so successful in business. I also think that to retain his sanity in the face of the constant attacks on him, he enjoys tweaking the establishment with outrageous Twitter messages to annoy them

I think he knows now that his ability to drain the swamp is quite limited by the protectionist actions of the swamp dwellers.

I want to see trump pardon a number of people before he goes in 2020, Snowden for one followed by the people mueller has attacked because they worked for trump

The. “Criminal” label has little to do with it really. It’s a matter of practicality and respect for and acceptance of the potential dangers to myself and others.

If the roads were privately owned, I think there would be rules that customers would have to follow that attempted to increase the safety of all the customers- not unlike the current licensing and dui rules-BUT without the criminal aspects for driving in a dangerous fashion if no harm was involved. The membership in that road system would be revoked. Electronic surveillance could enforce that today

Most of us know what moral and realistic are and the fact that they are fundamentally related. The fringe Libertarian Party represents neither, let alone their connection. Your endless rationalization and circling evasively trying to keep the game going for a fringe political party is not serious discussion.

"Moral" and "realistic" are two different standards. It's not immoral to cast a vote, even if it's a protest vote, for the party that is most in agreement with one's views. Restricting one's vote to two unpalatable choices allows the two "major" parties to remain in power for the indefinite future. That's truly a wasted vote.