It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: NY Plans 'DWI' Plates for Repeat Offenders

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB


You are a criminal, you smoke cannabis. Have you installed your "I smoke pot" plates yet?

There is a difference ya know. How many people have died due to pot-smokers behind the wheel? Too few to count...if any.



Wrong.18% of all motor vehicle driver deaths are drug related, hardly a few as you claim.



Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and coc aine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are generally used in combination with alcohol (NHTSA 2003).

Impaired Driving Facts


Also note those stats are two years old so I assume they are even greater now.

Ignorance has been Denied





[edit on 6/18/2005 by shots]




posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   


Wrong.18% of all motor vehicle driver deaths are drug related, hardly a few as you claim

Good point, that still does not defeat the fact that smoking pot in the privacy of your own home does not kill people...unline drunk driving.
I was not saying that driving while smoking is cool, it's not.
That was a bad example on my part....

And the site also said,


These other drugs are generally used in combination with alcohol (NHTSA 2003).

So within that 18% of drug related car accidents alcohol WAS being used in MOST cases. So the total percantage of Pot only car accidents is even fewer than 9%. and that's assuming that no other drugs were used...pot only. Factor in the percantage of other drugs and pot causes even fewer car accidents than 9%. But that's not the issue here.

If someone is a repeat offender for marijuana induced car accidents, then go ahead and give em a special plate. Jus the same for drunk driving repeat offenders.
hell take away thier licenses for all I care.

If you don't learn the first 2 or 3 times then someone has a problem, and it's not the DMV or MVA....it's you, the drunk driver. Hell give em an option...lose you PRIVILEDGE to drive or have a plate that labels you as a repeat offender.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB

And the site also said,


These other drugs are generally used in combination with alcohol (NHTSA 2003).

So within that 18% of drug related car accidents alcohol WAS being used in MOST cases. So the total percantage of Pot only car accidents is even fewer than 9%. and that's assuming that no other drugs were used...pot only. Factor in the percantage of other drugs and pot causes even fewer car accidents than 9%. But that's not the issue here.



Nice hack job by fudging the percentages and now limiting it to pot only. That is not the way it works. The fact is 18% of all DUI deaths are drug related that was the point I was making.

Do you always try to make Pot Smokers look like the good guy



:shk::shk::shk:



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   


Kriz_4, would you rather redeat drunk drivers lose thier license?
I would...but that's not my decision.



[edit on 18/6/2005 by SportyMB]


Minimum sentence here is 1 year ban from driving.

I would prefer that to be raised and yes repeat offenders should be banned permamently in my opinion.

And to spliff. It is illegal full stop to smoke pot, it is illegal to drive under the influence. If you smoked it the night before you should not be driving the next day. Just because you do not feel "high", it does not mean it is not affecting your judgement.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by Kriz_4]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   


I would prefer that to be raised and yes repeat offenders should be banned permamently in my opinion.

Same here, I say strip of thier license and force them to use pubic transportation and hitch a ride
They have no business on the road.

Shots, let's just drop the maijuana issue...that's not even the arguement here. Pot, crack, beer, soda, pcp, pixy sticks, M&M's...I don't care what it is....if causes you to harm people behind the wheel and you chose to do it in conjuction with driving on more than one occassion, then you deserve to be labeled, at the minimum.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
Shots, let's just drop the maijuana issue...that's not even the arguement here. Pot, crack, beer, soda, pcp, pixy sticks, M&M's...I don't care what it is....if causes you to harm people behind the wheel and you chose to do it in conjuction with driving on more than one occassion, then you deserve to be labeled, at the minimum.


Sure no problem I can live with that, althugh talking about it has raised some questions in my mind. I wonder if a breathalizer would even detect drugs? I was under the impression that could only be termed by a blood test.

I only mention that based on the suggestions that mandatory ignition breathalizers would be a good way to stop repeat offenders.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 03:07 AM
link   
I have an idea...lets hear from the pothead himself...


ahem..


If I am driving badly enough to be deemed a danger to others, or If I'm speeding, swerving or whatever else is deemed neccesary to get pulled over not once, not twice, BUT three times, then yes...there should be some sort of plate that says, "OFFICER!!! I SMOKE WEED!!!". If I am that stupid to figure out that after not once, but twice being busted driving "high" (how ever they would figure that out, I dont know), then I am a complete moron who doesnt belong on the road.

But you know what? That hasnt happened. Why? Because I am responsible when I drive. I wear a seatbelt. I dont speed (in excess), and most importantly, I DONT SMOKE WHEN I DRIVE !!!!! The only time its in my car is when Im going from point "A" to point "B".

Have I smoked and driven? Oh God yes...For years and years I did. How many times busted? 0. You might say luck. I disagree. My driving was never impaired enough to attract any attention to myself. I work nights and often am driving home at 1 or 2 in the morning. I have had PLENTY of cops on my ass. The only thing Ive been hit for, was a messed up taillight.

My point is this: If some drunk idiot, has been stupid enough to get busted 3 times in as many years, your right, he doesnt deserve a special license plate. He deserves a prison cell. If for no other reason, to sober them up. Alcohol destroys a lot of lives. Alot more lives than it helps. Imagine your mother or father killed by a drunk. Or your best friend..How would you feel?

Would you still worry about the possibility of an innocent driver being harrassed by the cops, or would you want the police to have the chance to get someone off the road who might kill MY best friend?

Personally, I feel someone with three DUIs should lose their license for 10 years, and should do some time. Also ignition interlocks. The inconvienience possibly endured by someone who has been thrice convicted of what pretty much amounts to attempted manslaughter to me, matters not. What does, is that I have a fair chance to get home.

While Ive never had a DUI and wont since I dont drink anymore, I dont hold it against someone who has had one. Everyone messes up. You are allowed a mistake. What you are not allowed is 2, or 3. Whens enough? When they kill someone? I would like to see a plate for that to
"DUI MRDR"



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:00 AM
link   
I think some people are missing the point here.

Firstly, anyone over the age of 21 in the USA has every right to drink. You can drink yourself into oblivion on a nightly basis and no one will infringe on that right. That all changes, however, when you attempt to get behind the wheel of a car.

I've seen families torn apart by drunk driving. A person who drives a car while drunk (even if nothing happens) is a POTENTIAL murderer every inch he drives.

Construct the following argument in your head: In order to get a license in the state of New York you have to first pass a written test, then practice driving with an instructor, and finally pass a test in which you drive with a DMV representative and show them you are capable.

Driving is not a right like free speech. If for whatever reason you can't pass the tests or can't park without slamming into a pole, you do not drive. There is no god given right to a driver's license until you prove yourself capable of driving.

In my opinion, someone who starts that car up while he's boozed up just proved to the world that he is not capable of making the responsible decisions necessary to operate a 4,000 pound object that can move 100mph.

To the families of those DWI criminals... if you don't want the scarlet letter, take that person off as a registered driver and don't let them behind the wheel. You will acheive two things. 1) You won't get pulled over for no reason, 2) you'll keep your boozing relative (and innocent fellow citizens) alive longer.

[edit on 6-19-2005 by Djarums]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Sure no problem I can live with that, althugh talking about it has raised some questions in my mind. I wonder if a breathalizer would even detect drugs? I was under the impression that could only be termed by a blood test.

I only mention that based on the suggestions that mandatory ignition

breathalizers would be a good way to stop repeat offenders.


Yes shots, breathalisers are being used now in some countries to detect for drug usage. It is slowly being introoduced in more countries, certainly in Europe and I believe Australia is trialing them.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Once again "Big Brother" is coming down on American citizens. But is the same true for the newly immigrated population? Not here in San Pablo CA.

Driving in my home town has become risky business. Here every few stop lights has one, two or even three drivers running through the red light. Then there's the people too scared to do the speed limit driving 25 in a 40 mile zone and holding back others to their "snail pace." And intersections at side roads are constantly blocked by drivers backed up at stop lights. Then everyday at 3:00, the road in front of the local middle school literally becomes a parking lot as parents stop in the middle of the road to wait for their kids. But my biggest pet peeve is the jackasses who stop in the middle of a two lane road divided by an island, to wait for the drive thru at McDonalds to move forward!
I questioned a San Pablo police officer as to why nothing was being done about the widespread violations being committed in my town. According to him, " there hands are tied." " It's all politics," he explained. Because San Pablo has a huge number of Mexican illegals, cracking down on these offenders becomes complicated. Many wouldn't have licenses. Without licenses, they couldn't be covered by insurance or have their vehicles registered in their name. Then there's the question of legal documentation to be in the country. As soon as a few illegals had their cars impounded or worse, Latino rights groups would scream harassment! That's exactly what happened last year in Oakland when sobriety check points busted several illegals. As a result the check points were stopped.

This racial profiling has led to blatant reverse discrimination. The other day my husband was driving the two block distance from our home to "Kragens" and forgot to buckle up. An obvious Caucasian, he was pulled over for this slight offense and cited $92.00

The New York proposal to "brand" people with previous DUIs doesn't surprise me. It's just an another example of the extreme hypocrisy being allowed today. At a time when American citizens are being "put under the microscope" and increasingly harassed, a "blind eye" is turned on known law breakers and possible terrorists.

It's time to just say no!



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Every piece of new legislation has to be looked at in the light of how it could be abused and what kind of precedent it would set. I know someone famous said that, I just can't remember who...

Anyway, the problem with tagging DUI offenders so that they can be stopped without cause is that it sets a precedent for future laws to tag all classes of criminals so the police can stop them without cause also. Make no mistake, the police would love to see this happen - "Just Cause" is a pain in their collective asses and they would soooo like to know exactly what flavour of dirtbag you are, driving around on their streets.

Once you serve a sentence for a crime, you're not supposed to be subject to further prosecution or 'persecution' but that's what this is, a law removing the need for Just Cause to stop (and presumably search) you if you've commited a crime in the past. That means you're now a different class of citizen without the same constitutional rights of other citizens..?

This is VERY dangerous legislation and typically, it's starting out by targetting a part of the community that nobody wants to defend because drunk drivers ARE a danger to the community, but think about what this legislation could lead to.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I would like to remind people that driving is a privilege and not a god given right.

Dollmonster, your community has bigger issues than drunk drivers. Your community has been hijacked by illegals. Sounds like it is time for your community to petition its leaders and remind them to uphold there duties. Maybe file a law suite concerning illegals since that is what they are most afraid of.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
I would like to remind people that driving is a privilege and not a god given right.

Dollmonster, your community has bigger issues than drunk drivers. Your community has been hijacked by illegals. Sounds like it is time for your community to petition its leaders and remind them to uphold there duties. Maybe file a law suite concerning illegals since that is what they are most afraid of.

Petitioning will not work though as has been proven in many cities and states. Petitioning will be envisioned to be "racially motivated" by such groups as LULAC and the petition will be struck down. One of the latest examples of this.
In Utah, the police can no longer use road blocks to test for DUI since when a person is stopped they have to provide a Dl and registrations. This lead to "too many" illegals being identified since they had no DL. LULAC demanded and was granted that this may actually be a type of racial discrimination.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012

In Utah, the police can no longer use road blocks to test for DUI since when a person is stopped they have to provide a Dl and registrations. This lead to "too many" illegals being identified since they had no DL. LULAC demanded and was granted that this may actually be a type of racial discrimination.


Only if the selectively stop cars then it could be taken as possible discrimination. Here when they set up DUI check points they stop every car just to avoid that situation. They do not run them that often but when they do they set up two, three lanes. One time I even saw four lanes, seemed to slow traffic some but not that much since it happens after bars close when traffic levels are low.

Those kind of rights groups should be taken out and shot if you ask me. Obviously they are not aware that the border patrol stops cars from Nogales to Tucson selectively everyday of the year 24/7.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Repeat DWI offeneders deserve nothing less. I think this is a great piece of legislation. After all, they could just revoke their liscense to drive forever.



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
More stupidity from the State of Hillary. Soon to come to an entire nation near you!

You think maybe they'd drive a different car? Or a rental? Hell, you can't pull over a $30,000 SUV with six display screens, two illegally in the dash, with 20 inch spinning rims, being driven by a welfare recipient who lives in section-8 funded housing and hasn't worked a reported job in ten years. Strap this plate on, and sudenly you're allowed to "profile"? You think they'll start pulling over punks and hispanics with the plate while the ACLU is watching like a hawk? Just the middle and lower class whites will get this special treatment.

On the plus side, Junior sure isn't going to ask to borrow "that" car very much. He'll borrow Mom's instead. Or are we gonna make all cars the family owns wear this plate, so the wife has to get this special treatment as well. What about other adults in the family?

Stupid nanny-state legislation. Rather than solve the problem and can the individual, we try to blame the car or the alchohol and label those.

Way I see it, if it's a first offense and no accident and no one gets hurt, mandatory six month suspension of license and car impounded. If anyone is hurt or second offense, permanent loss of license and impound. Get caught for driving without a license that was taken away for drunk driving, if no accident, one year prison. If there is an accident and someone is hurt 5 years. If anyone dies, murder charges, since no one forced the driver to drink, nor to drive repeatedly, then the driver chose to create the situation that caused the death.

Plates for pedos and other criminals, even stupider. Legislate to get them punished correctly, not wasting time on feel-good, worthless things like this. But that's been the hallmark of government for years. Like the worthless AWB. Made legislators feel they did something and got lots of sheeple believeing it made a difference, but did nothing to correct the situation of what to do with people who commit crimes with guns. Leave the guns alone, crack down on the killers. Here, leave the cars and booze alone, crack down on the drivers. Solve the problem, cure the source, not the symptoms.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join