> I'm not talking about applying DUI to marijuana or people sleeping in cars Great, but I am, and that's the disconnect. I agree with most of your comment, bu

> I'm not talking about applying DUI to marijuana or people sleeping in cars Great, but I am, and that's the disconnect. I agree with most of your comment, but the issue isn't that the premise is wrong, it's that the implementation is wrong. When I say that law isn't just, that's what I'm referring to. The law may be logical in its premise in the abstract, but the actual implementation of DUI laws strays far outside those logical premises, the real world doesn't match the abstract. You're talking about what the law intends to be, I'm talking about what it actually is because imho that's what actually matters. I don't care about the good intentions behind the laws, I care about those being fucked by the poor implementation of said laws. We don't have the highest incarceration rates in the first world because our laws are just, we have it because they aren't. > Where the line between acceptable and unacceptable rise in risk can't be precisely defined and must be established by social consensus That's just rephrasing what I said, something that relies on social consensus "is" just opinion and is not precisely definable, and by that I mean it isn't empirical, rather it's a popularity contest, i.e. political.