{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"Salty Cracker (npub1rx…lqp96)","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1rxak2es99eawktcvdx4kfzsu3ynntd8rmayz7jkprhslkj7ze3qs0lqp96","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"In order for something to be a \"crime\" per se, there must be a victim of said crime. \n\nWe already have laws on the books for threats of violence, driving aggressively/wrecklessly, etc. Why then is there an additional law for driving at 0.08% BAC vs 0.07% BAC, when in neither case somebody has to have been harmed? \n\nThe logic is as follows: if the only victim of a crime is the state [the most successful mafia in history] who is also responsible for exacting punishment against you, has there really been a crime committed? \n\nCommon rebuttals often include, \"Well DUI endangers others on the roadway...\" to which I would say, isn't your sober operation of a motor vehicle on the roadway also endangering others? Wouldn't it be safer to only allow one vehicle at a time on each section of roadway? The \"logic\" falls apart if perceived safety is the absolute end goal. \n\nI don't agree with DUI. I myself haven't been inebriated in about a decade, and I couldn't tell you the last time I had a drink. However, allowing the state to be the arbitrary morality police about BAC, plants in people's pockets, etc. is empowering them to claim victimhood against people who are otherwise causing harm to literally nobody. \n\nThat's the premise in a nutshell.  \n\n"}